There is a reason behind some of that. It isn't bad when other countries hate other countries. People in the Ivory Coast have some reason to hate the French. But nobody has really sent troops in here, occupied us, tolds us we had to change our govt. and all of that. So we don't really have the same reasons to hate other countries.
Really? What about Pearl Harbor? 9/11? What about having to send so many of our kids overseas to stop the Nazis? I think every country has been wronged in some way. I think the US has gotten more hate for less "wronging," if you will. And part of that is a normal result of having so much influence in the world.
Pearl Harbor - At that time I don't think anyone thought we were racist for not only disliking Japan, but going to war with them. Same goes for fighting the Nazis. 9/11 - That wasn't carried out by a country, so it is kind of hard to be angry at one country over that. I agree with you that historically we have done less of the wronging, but I disagree that we have received more of the hating. For the most part our nation has been thought of very well. That has taken a drastic downturn lately, and for a little bit in the 80's. But historically there hasn't really been such a problem, except when our nation was actually racist. Remember Blacks couldn't actually vote into 1964. Reagan vetoed sanctions against Apartheid, but luckily his veto was overridden by congress. The U.S. held on to slavery longer than other nations as well. There is a history of racism in this nation that is different than that of other nations. That doesn't mean any other nation is blameless, etc.
The rest of the world fears America, and when Bush ran over the UN, it gave them reason to distrust us. Undermining treaties like Kyoto and the Hague Tribunal doesn't help that trust. Electing Bush again gave them a lower opinion of the American people. I don't think we should dismantle our military to appease world's fear. But we don't have to castrate world insitutions to pre-emptively promote domestic security.... I don't fear the US. I don't even fear the government that much...for now. Why I hate this Admin is their gross neglect to the nation's budget, entitlements future (Social Security and Medicaid), the environment, and to our infrastructure that states look to the national government for funding. Their tactics to further their agenda is low class and insulting. I think the Admin is sending the nation to the ****hole, and that's why I hate it.
Nothing logical about it... You ask two questions and then say it's a logical conclusion. How can questions be a conclusion unless they are rhetorical? If they are rhetorical, your questions are really statements, your "conclusion" is no longer implied, and your post ends up looking like this: People outside America hate America. Some Americans disagree with the Administration and the war. Therefore, those Americans hate America. Illogical. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/fallacy_topics.html
We don't hate the British anymore . Aside from that I think you're giving WAY too much leeway for anti-americanism. It is not a recent or isolated phenomenon as you portray it to be either. There has been a long history of AA from China's communist regime, from the former Soviet Union, recently from the EU but also quite a bit from Old Europe pre-EU's emergence as the one voice of Europe. Further there was quite a bit of AA from the Non-Aligned Movement (India for example) and pan Arabian countries in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (Egypt for example). To assign all that ill will to the US occupying their countries is false on its face but also much too simplistic. Some AA comes from being populist fervor as distraction from local failures (see regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia), some is to unify power (see Castro and Chavez), some is from other world powers wanting numero uno status (see France, China), then there are reasons people as opposed to governments are AA - some from US support for poor policymaking (see Nicaragua), some from opposition to open markets (globalization), some purely nationalistic (see France), some ideological (see Osama bin Laden), some from misinformation. That is a short list of a complex problem. You could probably find a lot more or many different ways to organize the list. The main thing I think we should avoid is totalities which suggest whatever AA exists is a creation of ill will cast by the US on other actors. There has never been, IMO, a more benevolent superpower in the history of the world. Certainly as my list above indicates, there have been missteps, but in comparison we have always gotten more AA criticism than we deserve and less credit for the good things we do. But to bash America is timeless chic for some reason.
When I was in Athens, Greece earlier this month, I made sure that I kept as low of a profile as possible. One time, I was taking a taxi and the driver asked me where I was from and I told him the U.S. He then said, "Bush is our friend - he's A OK!" Of course, it was hard for me to tell if he was being serious or sarcastic. I didn't go on about Bush to him but he kept acting like he wanted me to. I also remember telling someone in Athens (I think or it might have been someone else) that just because I am an American that not to judge me on what the President does. I think it is like everyone else has said - they like our country for our ideals and philosophies but they hate the way one man has come in and made our government into this big bad bully. And this is coming from someone who is for the most part conservative and voted for Bush in the last election.
I don't hate America. I hate the fact that most Americans think they are better than everyone else. Arrogance in general bothers me.
When I go back to Belfast, people perceive America as one giant racist nation. They ask me questions like do most Americans hate the Jews as much as the blacks. I'm kind of dumbstruck, but I answer them mockingly saying that many Jews are rich from investments and banking, and a few blacks are rich from sports and entertainment. Being in Texas for a little while, and talking to some professional and blue collar blacks, they keep referring to the "two America's" that everyone lives in. They talk about how wealthy they get, they still are treated as though they are a street person, when walking into Cafe Annie. Being around the military and security circles around the world, most of these people in this field love America, for their embracement of the firearm and the violent tendencies that many Americans have. Also for most of these private security companies, their number one clients are American businesses doing work abroad in somewhat of a danger zone. I don't see many people complaining about big business from the US. Restaruants and eateries like McDonald's, Subway, Pizza Hut, and Starbucks are big attracions where ever I travel in the world. There aren't too many people who complain about these type of businesses. I think the main problem people have with America, or more specifically the American government is their over involvement in foreign affairs. Unfortunately alot of these people from outside lands tend to not differentiate the government from the people. As one buddy in Belfast told me "after all the people elected your government." "So thus the American people do have some responsibility for the ill-will directed toward them."
The Soviets and other cold war opponents doesn't really equal a world wide epidemic of anti-Americanism. There has always been a certain amount of it, but nothing on an such an epidemic level as I felt was what was being discussed. I mean Egypt, and the Palestinians believed the U.S. could be an honest broker for peace, and wanted the U.S. involved in the process. As far as the credit we don't get, I also don't know about that. We have alwyas been respected as champions of freedom and democracy. A lot of the humanitarian work as been done both by the govt. but also by American citizens through various organizations. I agree that some AA attitude will simply come because it is easy to hate the guy on top. But that is too be expected, and shouldn't really bother us. Only when we see dramatic increases in the basal level of AA should we really become concerned and start to ask serious questions. Occasionally someone is just an ass such as de Gaulle's France. After that period some AA lingered but it honestly hasn't been such a pronounced thing there for some time. I didn't mean to say that certain policies were the only reason. One thing is that we have to look at who travels abroad and represents our country. You have some folks who are generally open to the local way of life in countries they visit, others that don't understand different customs and may take something for rudeness that really isn't, or may accidentally do something rude that wouldn't be rude if done in America and the misunderstanding leads to bad feelings. In addition you have rich spoiled folks who don't appreciate and take no interest in the culture but only care shopping etc. You have those that travel to countries and then complain because it isn't the way it is back in the U.S. You have others who travel there and are mainly interested in drunkeness, legalized drugs, etc. and don't show an interest in anything beyond that. If the average American Joe could travel there regularly it would be a different story, but historically that hasn't been the large percentage of who travelled and created the image of Americans in the minds of other people from around the world. The causes are many, but I don't think until very recently has Anti-Americanism risen to the level of major concern despite a certain aount of it existing.
Vietnam might disagree with your characterization of the United States as the "benevolent superpower in the history of the world," but your list of reasons countries have had large amounts of "anti-Americanism," in the past, has no bearing on what Bush has managed to do, in any case. We have been well loved across the globe, more often than not, because of our democratic traditions. We were free traders that, more often than not, chose to be a rather isolationist nation, if you left our trade alone. Up until WWI, despite a couple of well known exceptions, we preferred to stay out of the rest of the world's conflicts, and battles over colonial expansionism. After WWI, we returned to isolationist feelings across the country... ignoring how increasingly difficult staying out of the great power conflicts around the world was proving to be. World War II put paid to American isolationist tendencies. We were thrust into a world leadership position we had never desired. We fumbled our way into Korea, because North Korea forced us to, and Vietnam, because LBJ allowed himself to be persuaded that intervention was a Cold War imperative. The other conflicts were rather small affairs, until the Gulf War. Mr. Bush's father used his great experience in foreign policy to brilliant advantage, and forged an unlikely coalition that not only paid for most of the conflict, but fought in it as well. Unlike LBJ, he left the heavy lifting to the experts in the military sphere, and concentrated on the "big picture." Some may not have liked how Bush Senior saw the picture, but no one could say he didn't have valid reasons for what he did, agree with him or not. His son couldn't be more different from his father. 9/11 smacked us in the face, and we all wanted bloody revenge. Afghanistan was an obvious place to start, and was brilliantly executed. The world gave us wholehearted support, with the images broadcast around the globe of the falling towers giving the United States support and sympathy not seen in decades. We were in a position to do great things. With the Soviet Union gone, and it's empire in shreds, we stood alone as the Great Power, which normally would have had us looked at with distrust and suspicion from huge swaths of the world, from those who had suffered from great powers in the past. Because of 9/11, we were given a golden chance to take advantage of the sympathy and warm feelings that existed in the aftermath. Bush threw it all away. By invading and occupying a sovereign nation, one clearly not a threat to the United States, in the heart of the Middle East, he threw it all away. His actions since have done nothing except increase the suspicion, fear, and anger of the vast majority of the world towards our country. Bush has been a failure as President from the day he decided he was going to invade Iraq, come hell or high water. There are plenty of reasons for me to dislike the man and his domestic policies in this country, but what he did when he invaded Iraq is beyond the pale. He lied, he misrepresented, and he ultimately broke the laws of our country. He should be impeached, he shouldn't be praised. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
I once held her in my arms She said she would always stay But I was cruel I treated her like a fool I threw it all away. Once I had mountains in the palm of my hand And rivers that ran through ev'ry day I must have been mad I never knew what I had Until I threw it all away. Love is all there is, it makes the world go around Love and only love it can't be denied No matter what you think about it You just won't be able to do without it Take a tip from one who's tried. So if you find someone that gives you all of her love Take it to your heart, don't let it stray For one thing that's certain You will surely be a-hurtin' If you throw it all away.
I have had the same issue when I traveled to Boston and the East Coast. Depending where I go, I don't like telling them I am from Houston. For example, about 3 months ago I got a cab from Logan Airport to Cambridge, the Cabby asked me where I was from I told him Houston, the Cabby then proceded to take the longest route from the Airport to my hotel and pretty much argued with me the whole way about how Bush and Texas was evil... The cab ride cost around 40 dollars. When I got a cab to take me back to Logan, the cabby asked me where I was from, I told him New Orleans, he told me how much he loved the city yada yada yada... The cab ride cost 23 dollars. Interesting the reactions you get even in the US when you tell someone where you are from. The worst reaction I have had about being a Texan is still when I was in Pittsburgh, the cabby asked me where I was from, I told him Texas, he then proceeded to put on some Jeff Foxworthy CD and said that I should be able to relate to this...
Well, first off the Soviet sphere included quite a bit of the globe, second there was China, third were those nations not strictly aligned (NAM) with the Cold War superpowers, fourth there was - even in western europe - quite a bit of anti-americanism (see nuclear protests etc). Those are pretty easily verifiable. I'm not sure what 'level' you're talking about, but to say it hasn't historically been at a high level is incorrect IMO. Yes, obviously I agree we've done good things. That isn't the point. We are frequently damned for actions we do take (for example our 'war crimes in Serbia) and for those we don't (for example Rwanda). I think the example that came out pre-Iraq sums it up nicely: asked if the US should be engaged in the Middle East she said no, the US should mind its own business - asked if she was worried about Iraq, she said no, if Saddam got too aggressive the US would come and take care of him. If we take action we're condemned as imperialists and bullies, if we don't we've abandoned the needy. Not saying there shouldn't be concern when it rises. My point is that a claim that it hasn't been historically high is not correct. Of course they might. But I doubt they think we're any worse than the French, or the Japanese etc. Compare those opinions, however, with how Carthaginians felt about Rome and you might get the point. Oh wait, Rome burned down all of Carthage, sowed their fields with salt so nothing would grow, and sold all the people into slavery. Hmmm... In addition, since we've become a super power we haven't done what every other superpower in history has done, which is engage in imperialist expansion. My point is not that we've only done good things, its that we're the most benevolent superpower in history. No, I am not denying that some level of AA has come from Bush's decisions. I am only addressing claims that (a) those decisions are the cause of all AA and (b) that historically levels of AA were low until Bush. Until the late 19th and early 20th century we weren't a world power, so there wasn't much to be anti about. TR might disagree with you there. I am not denying that the intervention in Iraq has increased suspicion of our actions. But at the same time I think its important to be realistic about it. The intervention in Afghanistan was not, in fact, met with universal support. Further there was AA sentiment emerging over that intervention before the move into Iraq, especially in the Muslim world. While I don't think its fair to say there would have been the same level of AA regardless of the Iraqi intervention, I also think this theory that we had immeasurable political capital is vastly overstated. The AA that comes from anti-globalization forces would certainly still be active, regardless of Iraq, for example. That can't be laid at Bush's feet. Other decisions Bush has made besides Iraq, such as pursuing BMD/withdrawing from ABM, abandoning Kyoto, etc have raised AA and those CAN be laid at his feet. But overall I think that the 'golden opportunity theory' is overstated. Russia, China, and France at the very least were chafing at this sentiment and could have reasonably been expected to hedge against a huge expansion of US influence. I'm certainly not praising Bush. I think he has been a failure since the beginning of his presidency, not from his intervention in Iraq, but I don't think you can prove he lied, or that he broke laws. IMO he never should have been elected and certainly not re-elected.
Favorable opinion of the U.S. in most parts of the world had been above 50% during the 90's. In some places it was well above it. After 9/11 it was above 60%. If more of the world likes us than doesn't, I don't consider that to be high.
I love bush he is my freaking hero. hes a cowboy saint that has little angel wings hidden under his flannel shirt.
