Anti-Americanism

[PocketRocket]

  The Prof has came out in class stating that the American public are just as idiotic as their president.  And you can take that as a quote. 

Then that particular prof is a pompous ass who doesn't recognize the difference between her personal opinion and verifiable fact.

A history teacher should know better.

On the other hand, to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she was fishing for someone to fight back. Not having been there, it's tough for me to say.

  She believes that the nation is rediculous and people are idiotic due to the fact that almost every household put up a yellow ribbon when the War in Iraq began to signify support for the troops. 

Hell, I supported the troops and I'm not even American. The troops are not to blamed for the actions/policies of the administration.

The troops did not start the war. They did, however, have to fight it, and survive it. Some didn't manage the latter.

  95% of the classroom agreed that Americans are rediculous imperialists and this is when talking about the people. 

Of that 95%, IMHO, several are asses, and the rest are sheep who will do, think or say whatever prof tells them.

  I was sickened. 

Glad to hear it. You've learned a valuable lesson; when attending that particular professor's seminars, bring gravol.

[Shakeyhands]

August1991 Posted on Feb 27 2005, 05:54 AM

This is what I mean. She's comparing the US with the Soviet Union. McQuaig sees Washington as a big, bad bully.

She refers to the American Empire.

The Soviet Union was a dictatorial regime run by thugs. The US is a democracy with checks and balances. The Left just doesn't get it.

HUH? What does that have to do with disliking Americans? It has everything to do with standing up and being counted as against a stupid plan.

And what exactly is it that the Left doesn't get?

[Black Dog]

Nope. Except the same people who are eager to sneer at America and Americans for supposed, often imagined failures have knee-jerk reflexes which causes them to decry any such judgement when directed at other nations, societies or peoples.

Ah.....no.

The US is a fundamentally good society. I wish more Canadians would appreciate this fact.

There's no such thing as a "fundamentally good" society.

The Soviet Union was a dictatorial regime run by thugs. The US is a democracy with checks and balances. The Left just doesn't get it.

The one who doesn't get it us you, I'm afraid. You are willing to put absolute faith in a system ("checks and balances! democracy!") while forgetting that systems and the societies they govern are easily corrupted. The U.S. is no exception.

[August1991]

The one who doesn't get it us you, I'm afraid. You are willing to put absolute faith in a system ("checks and balances! democracy!") while forgetting that systems and the societies they govern are easily corrupted. The U.S. is no exception.

I won't argue that the US is heaven on earth. But if you can't see the difference between the Soviet Union and the US, then you're the one who doesn't get it.

What corruption do you mean?

There's no such thing as a "fundamentally good" society.

What I meant is that the US Constitution is designed to limit as much as possible the tyrannical powers of the State and leave as much power as possible in the hands of individuals. In addition, property is respected and contract law complex. The result is that individual effort contributes generally to the collective good.

The US was the first society to do this explicitly and it has arguably been the most successful. Indeed, it has been so successful that the fruits allow the largest military force in world history. It is fortunate that the use of this force is restricted by the checks and balances of the US Constitution.

The great error of non-Americans is to see the US federal government as all powerful. It is not. Power is greatly diffused in the US.

[August1991]

HUH? What does that have to do with disliking Americans? It has everything to do with standing up and being counted as against a stupid plan.

Fine, let us disagree with the Americans. It is perfectly within our rights. Bush is not about to send tanks into Ottawa as Brezhnev sent tanks into Prague. (Brezhnev had the audacity to claim they were "invited".)

And what exactly is it that the Left doesn't get?

See above.

[Black Dog]

I won't argue that the US is heaven on earth. But if you can't see the difference between the Soviet Union and the US, then you're the one who doesn't get it.

Here's where you shudl start: open up a dictionary and look up the word "analogy". No one (myself or Linda McQuaig included) is saying the United States is exactly the same or as bad as the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. What we are saying is that something is rotten in the state of America.

What corruption do you mean?

For starters, there's the simple reality that the influence of big money on the political process means American politicians operate largely in the interests of those who bankroll them. That's true regardless of political party.

What I meant is that the US Constitution is designed to limit as much as possible the tyrannical powers of the State and leave as much power as possible in the hands of individuals. In addition, property is respected and contract law complex. The result is that individual effort contributes generally to the collective good.

You also seem to operate under the assumption that these are unassialable facts and that the Constituition and its accompanying checks and balances are immue to errosion or atack. They are not. For example, take a look at a history of the war on drugs and see how private property and individual rights have been abused by the state.

[August1991]

No one (myself or Linda McQuaig included) is saying the United States is exactly the same or as bad as the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

Linda McQuaig implied that by her comparison. You have suggested as much in your references to the Patriot Act, for example.

But forget the historical analogies or comparisons. The US (and Bush) are presented as big, dominant, arrogant, Empire-building, ignorant, overweight, militaristic. Many secretly hope the Chinese or Russia or Ossama stand up to the bullies.

What corruption do you mean?

For starters, there's the simple reality that the influence of big money on the political process means American politicians operate largely in the interests of those who bankroll them. That's true regardless of political party.

I asked the question because there have been so many theories of corruption. Yours is one of many.

The US federal budget is about 2 trillion annually. Bush spent about 300 million becoming president for a four year term. That seems like a very cheap price to get control of such a budget.

I suspect that the buying is a lot more costly than 300 million and it involves American voters selling their votes, not corporations buying them.

The problem with democracy is not that corporations corrupt the system by paying off politicians. Imagine, for a moment, what the US government would look like if voting lists were restricted to people owning property worth more than, say, $1 million.

[Black Dog]

Linda McQuaig implied that by her comparison. You have suggested as much in your references to the Patriot Act, for example.

I've notice you tend to miss the point of such comparisons. For example, McQuaig's comparison was directed at the United States cavalier disregard for the soverignty of its neighbour's, a trait which the U.S.S.R displayed on more than one occassion. Does that mean she expects the U.S. to send tanks into Scarbourough? No.

Furthermore, your initial response ("The Soviet Union was a dictatorial regime run by thugs. The US is a democracy with checks and balances.") simply points out the differences in structure between the two, which fails to account for any similaritiy in action (and indeed, implicitly rejects any such possibility).

Now, I will say that these analogies are thrown around far too much. However, in some cases they are warranted (the Patriot Act, for instance, is a piece of legislation that would be perectly at home in a totalitarian or fascist state).

I asked the question because there have been so many theories of corruption. Yours is one of many.

Again, you oversimplify by saying that there is a single source of corruption which exists in the system.

[moderateamericain]

its always intresting to see how the world views the united states, unfortunetly most of the interpatations that this collective website have about american society are cleary wrong, and i think it has more to do with ignorance, and not do to any purposeful malice. I dont make judgements about any canada based on meeting one or two or even three canadians, so anti-americanism is to me just foolishness to roll my eyes at, just like anti-muslim attitudes are in america.

[daniel]

Yeah, I do the same thing and roll my eyes at people who are quick to jump on you with the tag "Anti-American" or "US Basher."

[ticker]

You mean like those voters that were tagged anti Canadian if they didn't vote liberal or NDP ... which country could they be referring to... the Soviet Union?

If you think this site has too much of an anti American attitude then you should try the rabble.ca website where they all badmouth the Canadian right... hummm they must just love the Americans over there

[moderateamericain]

only differnce is, if i called you anti-american you prolly did something or said something off color to deserve it, i dont think ive made one anit-candian remark on this webforum yet, i dont have to, because i have the intelligence to realize that what a few elected officials or radical screamers say or do does not a country make. bashing america will get you nothing but ignored. just like bashing any other country. an effectiver debator will not tell you why your are wrong, but why he is right. anything else is just an expression of being unconfident.

[August1991]

I've notice you tend to miss the point of such comparisons. For example, McQuaig's comparison was directed at the United States cavalier disregard for the soverignty of its neighbour's, a trait which the U.S.S.R displayed on more than one occassion. Does that mean she expects the U.S. to send tanks into Scarbourough? No.

There you go again, like McQuaig, you equate the behaviour of the US government to the despots in the Kremlin.

Furthermore, your initial response ("The Soviet Union was a dictatorial regime run by thugs. The US is a democracy with checks and balances.") simply points out the differences in structure between the two, which fails to account for any similaritiy in action (and indeed, implicitly rejects any such possibility).

There is a difference, BD. (But I don't want this post to become merely a history debate.)

First, Bush has had to survive a long electoral process requiring general approval of millions of people. Anything Bush does will require the support of several hundred political types in Congress. Bush cannot violate the Constitution.

Second, for this reason, Bush cannot propose some hare-brained scheme that is sheer lunacy. IOW, a position put forward by Bush merits consideration. (Compare this to North Korea where clearly no one has even the courage to tell Kim that he needs a comb. In such regimes, diabolical idiocy can prevail.)

Third, I suspect that McQuaig and you sincerely believe that Bush and gang are basically power-mad thugs, and the US is a latter day Rome hell bent on conquering an Empire. In so doing, you completely misunderstand the US and the US government.

I am not saying that you need agree with Bush or the actions of the US. But if your level of understanding attains "Bush lied, kids died" or American Empire then your analysis is meaningless.

Now, I will say that these analogies are thrown around far too much. However, in some cases they are warranted (the Patriot Act, for instance, is a piece of legislation that would be perectly at home in a totalitarian or fascist state).

I don't thinkthe Patriot Act in its current form will survive a Supreme Court test. But it is nowhere near our War Measures Act which in itself is very, very far from the fascism of Mussolini.

its always intresting to see how the world views the united states, unfortunetly most of the interpatations that this collective website have about american society are cleary wrong, and i think it has more to do with ignorance, and not do to any purposeful malice.

No doubt, whether it wants to or not, the US represents the white keys on the piano of the world. No doubt I too have an incorrect viewpoint. The US is a big place with lotsa people doing lotsa different things.

-----

One aspect of this whole anti-Americanism I find depressing is that the US and Canada have common interests. We are not adversaries. It should be normal for a Canadian PM to be on good terms with US politicians.

I suspect the explanation for this lies in the Left's inability to see life as other than a zero sum game.

[ticker]

Or like those on the left that accuse Klien of fabricating an anti Ottawa attitude to maintain his base. It doesn't hurt the liberal left cause to imply the US is bad; if you don't vote liberal and let the other guys in by extension that is like the bad US.

As in the way they say you can have socialized medicine but not the US way and people dying in the streets... there is no middle ground.

[Fortunata]

I Miss Regan

"Canada is self-righteous, but we are condemned to live together." -Henry Kissinger

"USA is a puffed-up self-righteous bully, but we are condemned to live together." -Me

[Black Dog]

There you go again, like McQuaig, you equate the behaviour of the US government to the despots in the Kremlin.

Compare: To consider or describe as similar or analogous; liken.

Equate: To make equal or equivalent.

Your analysis is sloppy.

First, Bush has had to survive a long electoral process requiring general approval of millions of people. Anything Bush does will require the support of several hundred political types in Congress. Bush cannot violate the Constitution.

Second, for this reason, Bush cannot propose some hare-brained scheme that is sheer lunacy. IOW, a position put forward by Bush merits consideration. (Compare this to North Korea where clearly no one has even the courage to tell Kim that he needs a comb. In such regimes, diabolical idiocy can prevail.)

So you're basically saying the U.Spolitical process is airtight and ironclad, and its actors insulated from the tendancy towards corruption that power brings? that's not logic, that's faith.

As for hare-brained schemes, let's talk Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the Patriot Act, NMD, Star Wars, the School of the Americas, Grenada, Monica, phantom WMD, etc etc...

Basically, diabolical idiocy can prevail withing the confines of your precious and inviolable checks and balances.

I am not saying that you need agree with Bush or the actions of the US. But if your level of understanding attains "Bush lied, kids died" or American Empire then your analysis is meaningless.

I don't think it's up to you to decide what terms are limited from the debate. There's a lot of pervasive arguments to be made that America is or at least moving toweards, empire status. Hell, there's those on the right to whom empire-building is a noble goal.

I don't think the Patriot Act in its current form will survive a Supreme Court test. But it is nowhere near our War Measures Act which in itself is very, very far from the fascism of Mussolini.

Yopur problem is you arent capable in thinking in anything other than absolutes. To you, since Patriot Act does not equal fascism (as practiced historically) then all is right with the world. You don't seem to grasp how political systems are corrupted and how antidemocratic structures can develop in democracies. No, the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, officially mandated torture etc etc are not themselves indicators of an existing fascist state, but they are steps along that path.

[August1991]

Compare: To consider or describe as similar or analogous; liken.

Equate: To make equal or equivalent.

Your analysis is sloppy.

Sloppy? I'm on an Internet forum. "Equate" seems fair usage to me. If you prefer "compare", be my guest.

I would not equate or compare a chocolate donut to a flat tire except to say they're different.

So you're basically saying the U.Spolitical process is airtight and ironclad, and its actors insulated from the tendancy towards corruption that power brings? that's not logic, that's faith.

As for hare-brained schemes, let's talk Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the Patriot Act, NMD, Star Wars, the School of the Americas, Grenada, Monica, phantom WMD, etc etc...

And what happened with Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica? (WTF? Monica?)

My point? It is difficult for the US president to do something really stupid and it is probably impossible to do it for very long.

How do we define "really stupid"? Well, I wouldn't use your definition, BD. Rather, what many Americans believe is stupid. That strikes me as a good criteria.

Basically, diabolical idiocy can prevail withing the confines of your precious and inviolable checks and balances.

Idiocy, maybe. Diabolical idiocy, no.

I don't think it's up to you to decide what terms are limited from the debate. There's a lot of pervasive arguments to be made that America is or at least moving toweards, empire status. Hell, there's those on the right to whom empire-building is a noble goal.

Ok, don't take my limits. Take John Lennon's:

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

My point is more subtle. If you try to design an airplane using Aristotelian physics, your plane will never fly.

The US government has no plans to create an Empire and Bush did not invade Iraq to get oil for Halliburton. There were legitimate concerns about WMD and an understanding that enemies of the US had to be stopped.

Now, then. If you think Bush could have gone about this differently, then let's discuss it.

Yopur problem is you arent capable in thinking in anything other than absolutes. To you, since Patriot Act does not equal fascism (as practiced historically) then all is right with the world. You don't seem to grasp how political systems are corrupted and how antidemocratic structures can develop in democracies. No, the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, officially mandated torture etc etc are not themselves indicators of an existing fascist state, but they are steps along that path.

BD, you're the one that sees no grey because for you, the Patriot Act might as well be the Gestapo (it's only a step a way, as you say). Only someone with their contrast level set on absolute could see things that way.

----

I'm intrigued why the Left shares most of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution yet rejects so often the practical result.

One difference is that the Left would prefer, I think, a more equitable sharing of the world's gifts.

I think too that the Left believes some people need a guiding hand rather than rank freedom.

But I must say that many Leftists root for the underdog and just don't like anyone they perceive as big and arrogant. Leftists consider "alternative" to be a compliment. Maybe this is the cause of anti-Americansim.

[Fortunata]

August1991 - the USA is arrogant and unscrupulous. It has deposed democratically elected leaders to insert an American puppet that would do things their way, to the detriment of those peoples, to the benefit of not only the US government but American big business interests as well.

George Bush had Iraq on his agenda before 9-11. According to Bob Woodward one of the first principle's meetings after Bush was elected was about Iraq; people were told to find a way. Nothing about WMD, nothing about dangers posed, nothing about liberating the Iraqi people. It was what daddy couldn't do, it was about Saddam trying to take daddy out. That Iraq sits on the world's second biggest oil reserve sure didn't hurt either.

After 9-11 when Afghanistan had been identified as the "should-be" target, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (and who knows who else) wanted to go after Iraq INSTEAD of Afghanistan. There isn't anything "good" to target and bomb in Afghanistan is what has been purported as being said. That has not been refuted by the Whitehouse.

There have been reports of anywhere from 10,000 to over 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq. The righties tend to go low, lefties tend to believe high. I am a centrist but by all accounts I have read and heard, by returning media and US soldiers, I think it is higher rather than lower. These Iraqi's not only got liberated from Saddam but from life itself. But I guess that's the price of US enforced freedoms isn't it?

The ends justifies the means. That seems to be a rightist mantra. If so, you cannot blame Putin for his actions against not only Chechyns, his own version of the Patriot Act, the media bias FOR the government, the building of bigger and better armaments and/or the selling of any armament to unstable countries. After all, he would just be following the US governments lead under this president.

The world, right now, is in bigger turmoil and is much more dangerous a place than it was before 9-11 and Geroge's pre-emptive policies based on the intelligence he wanted to believe. Will it continue to be? I think terrorist actions will escalate. Will Geroge's democracy card work in the middle east? Some say it already is. I'm not willing to give credit to Bush yet on the ultimate success of democratizing the ME, but I am willing to condemn the means he used when other means weren't even tried. Not that he wanted to anyways.

[August1991]

August1991 - the USA is arrogant and unscrupulous. 

By "USA", do you mean Bush? The US federal government? US society? Hollywood?

Sorry Fortunata if I sound flippant, but your post is boilerplate.

The ends justifies the means. That seems to be a rightist mantra. If so, you cannot blame Putin for his actions against not only Chechyns, his own version of the Patriot Act, the media bias FOR the government, the building of bigger and better armaments and/or the selling of any armament to unstable countries. After all, he would just be following the US governments lead under this president.

Putin wants to appoint governors in Russia's 89 regions. I'd love to see Bush try that in the 50 states.

The world, right now, is in bigger turmoil and is much more dangerous a place than it was before 9-11 and Geroge's pre-emptive policies based on the intelligence he wanted to believe.

I'm not saying the world was perfect before the WTC attacks but it clearly changed for Americans then. And the US didn't start this fight.

In the 1960s, you'd have blamed the Americans for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Berlin Wall fell. Game over. Can you change your theories so that we all can move on, please?

[Shakeyhands]

August. Are you saying that US Foreign Policy had nothing to do with 9/11? What was it then? Do they just 'Hate Freedom'?

[Montgomery Burns]

You don't get it, Shakeyhands, do you?

[Fortunata]

August it is not so easy to just "move on". Actions have unforeseen consequences at unforeseen times. You can blame 9-11 on a few whackos or you can look at the causes. Those causes are real to people, whether or not they seem legitimate to you or me.

The US foreign policies over the years have not been necessarily altruistic so why would you expect altruism back?

Yes, the US had cause to go in and weed out Al Qaeda; they had no legal or moral right to go into Iraq. But legal and moral have never been the centerpiece when it comes to the USA, or at least, it has only been on the table when it suits them and the fact that they expect it from others. They are the personification of double standard.

I see that double standard, many Americans also see it, unfortunately some will never allow themselves to see it.

[anticlimates]

It seems to me as though Anti-Americanism in this country is out of control.

Is it right for Canadians to hate America, as they do, because of their dislike for an administration. 

I think you've got it completely backwards.

The accusations of anti-Americanism are what's out of control.

This is a disturbing new tactic by rightwingers in both countries to try and paint opposition to the policies of Bush as illegitimate.

I see it constantly while lurking on American forums....any liberal who critisizes the war or Bush is hurled the anti-American accusation.

And we get to hear over and over and over again how one Canadian used the word "bastards" while referencing Americans.....and another one used the word "moron" for Bush.

Both situations were "overheard" (private conversation in the heat of an emotional political moment before the Iraq war). Why do we keep hearing these two anecdotes?

Are they really significant? Are they really evidence of "anti-Americanism"? Or are there people on this continent who benifit from this anti-American myth? Bingo.

[Shakeyhands]

I guess I don't, thats why I asked August to explain it.

Perhaps you'd like to have a go at explaining it to me. Why do those terrorists hate the US so? Does it have anything to do with US Foreign Policy?

[ticker]

It is the liberals and their spin-doctors that labeled the right wing voters as 'un Canadian' last election. Which country were they referring to? ... The Soviet Union

They wouldn’t call Quebecois un Canadian and guarantee the bloc would win more votes.

You can't have it both ways say the liberals are not anti-American and at the same time say those right wing voters are 'un Canadian'