# American Bashing?



## pollyb

I am confused and upset by the apparent dislike of Americans from most of the Europeans communicating on this forum. I have always heard of the French attitude towards Americans as none too friendly but have only heard good things from fellow Americans who have visited that country, but on this forum the hostility is very obvious. In particular there is a sign off from Silviap reading "And I long for the day when the Russian will say to the American people _and you were laughing at us?_ I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at there.?
We are generally a really nice people, ofcourse like all countries we do have our share of a.h.'s and jerks. but aren't they everywhere?
comments please from others about feelings towards Americans?
thank you
Pollyb


----------



## quehuong

Polly,

I've read the other message you posted in the other thread, but I'm still contemplating how to answer it.  Also, you didn't say that you were an elder and a gentleman, so I'll think of you as just Polly now.  Btw, I have an elder French professor named Polly.  So, I somehow associated you with him.

--------

American Bashing?

Even Americans are bashing Americans.  *Some* Bostonians, New Yorkers, Mainers, Californians, etc came to Missouri for some reasons one of which was visiting the sceneries; they thought we were living in one of the Ice Ages.  They disgustingly arrogantly condescendingly looked down upon the country folks who happened to be speaking English with a Southern accent and a charm of their dialectal colorful words and of course living in a way different from theirs. *Some* educated folks from some metropolitan areas (in MO and elsewhere) labeled themselves as "cultured and educated" and thought that they could give the country folks a few educational lessons.  

I've visited several countries in Europe, and enjoyed my visits tremendously.  I have to say that some American tourists were rude and ignorant of their hosts' cultures.  I was sad to see that, and I can understand why many Europeans have a great urge to fight back and criticize the average American for being ignorant among many other terms.  

Some day- soon I hope- any average American can tell a European that he/she can speak a second language fluently and understand the target culture quite well.  I'm optimistic!


----------



## DDT

How subtle of you, Quehuong!
You see, Polly, I don't think people regularly dropping some lines in this forums might be accused of disliking American people. Let me remember you that everyone being a "regular" here is aware of the fact that this website exists thanks to an American man. Would people disliking Americans take part in it?...Concerning silviap's quote, I guess that's nothing but a joke.
Moreover contemporary art, literature, theatre, etc etc owe so much to American culture that no one being slightly cultivated will ever spit on your country nor on your culture. Despite of the fact that there are - of course - cultural or political American sides being susceptible of being put the blame on...but viceversa is fair as well...that's the basis for a civil meeting among different cultures.

DDT


----------



## pollyb

I really think it is ironic that so many Europeans dislike Americans but try their hardest to imitate us, in culture and language. Why do so many Europeans speak english I don't just think it is their proximity to Great Britain. I think it is a love-hate relationship most Europeans have with America.
As for the insulting Americans in Missouri, I think you get that everywhere. There are some people living below the Mason Dixon line who are still fighting the Civil War!! Unfortunately prejudice is a world-wide problem.
pollyb


----------



## dave

Hi Polly.

I too have noticed this in the last week, however please don't take it too personally and try not to be offended by it. I think what you need to appreciate (which I'm sure you do already) is the lack of comprehension amongst a large majority of Europeans that the American people chose to re-elect Bush. That scares a lot of Europeans, as his victory will touch all of us (some of us think for the better, others for the worse). I'm sure you know that the overwhelming majority of Europeans were, and still are, deeply opposed to Bush and Blair's war, and for many many reasons. One of those reasons is that it has made the world a whole lot unsafer and even more unstable, and many Europeans are worried. It is inevitable that some of the emotion caused by this is going to be directed at the people who, as they see it, have allowed it to continue. Many Europeans have asked themselves how the American people could have voted for a man so patently stupid and ill-informed, and a regime so malign, hypocritical and uncaring, and have concluded that they (the voters) must be cut from the same cloth. It is very unfortunate that your whole population has been tarred with same brush, and also unfortunate that this hostility has crept into this forum. That's how I see it anyway - no doubt there will be other views!

I try to keep my politics out of the forum (otherwise I might end up falling out with everyone!), and would hope that others might too - it all too often ends up getting nasty (although I don't think we have reached that point yet). My advice would be to ride the current 'storm', and remind us regularly that yours is the country that gave us Elvis and deep pan pizza!  

Dave

PS: Let's remember that we're all here through our shared interests in each other's languages - I visit a different forum for plotting the overthrow of the neo-conservative global capitalist machine


----------



## Silvia

polly, polly, polly... do we have to go back to the humor thread?

This really sounds like gossip. You cannot jump to conclusions about what I like or dislike, or assume things like that, calling it hostility! You could have asked me directly.

My "signature" doesn't imply I dislike Americans. It's just a joke.

But if you think it deserves a whole thread, well, thank you   

Anyway, to be serious, if I didn't like Americans, would I strive to learn their language? Yes, their language, saying learned instead of learnt, fall instead of autumn, dreamed instead of dreamt...

You're so proud, but I don't think everyone wants to imitate Americans! Especially Europeans... on the other hand, Americans try to impose themselves, like it or not, and I would say that's not appreciated. But that's another matter, which I'm not going to discuss here.

In conclusion, don't get bothered that easily (much ado about nothing) and accept criticism, it's a sign of intelligence.

Cheers!


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello Polly,

I can appreciate your sensitivity, but others here have already suggested ways to put the criticisms, and possible responses to them into a broader context.  
Let's look at the other side of the coin--Donald Rumsfeld, our 'esteemed' or 'properly villified' secretary of war  ---yeah, I know, they changed the title some decades ago, to Sec. of Defense--said some atrociously insulting things about the French.  Millions of Americans are on a French-bashing campaign ever since.  How does that make a French forero feel?  I'm sure it leads to some combination of hurt and hostility.

What can we, meaning you Polly and me Cuchu, DO?  We can come here with open minds, learn from our colleagues, and disagree civilly when we think an unfair or unfounded criticism has been made.  Heavens, Americans disagree with one another too, as you and I have demonstrated in these pages.  It need not lead to bad feelings.

We can, of course, always respond with facts.  A Republican friend of mine--yes, I do consort with those with whom I strongly disagree--made a remark recently about people from 'the heartland' of the US.  This is, of course, pure bunk.  So instead of calling him an unfair idiot, or an unthinking Limbaugh clone, I asked why rural people from a particular region, engaged in agriculture, are any more representative of a nation than the majority of citizens, who live in cities and don't grow crops.  This led to a mutually informative conversation, and neither of us left it with our feelings bent out of shape.  

Now, if a compatriot of the intelligent and charming Ms Silvia were to criticize Americans for electing Bush, you could simply question why his/her people have selected Berlusconi.  The result could well be greater understanding and a reduction in name calling.

Best regards,
Cuchu


----------



## David

pollyb said:
			
		

> I am confused and upset by the apparent dislike of Americans from most of the Europeans communicating on this forum. I have always heard of the French attitude towards Americans as none too friendly but have only heard good things from fellow Americans who have visited that country, but on this forum the hostility is very obvious. In particular there is a sign off from Silviap reading "And I long for the day when the Russian will say to the American people _and you were laughing at us?_ I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at there.?
> We are generally a really nice people, ofcourse like all countries we do have our share of a.h.'s and jerks. but aren't they everywhere?
> comments please from others about feelings towards Americans?
> thank you
> Pollyb


I guess I am as American as you are. I was born in Kansas and have lived in this country for 53 of my 61 years. . I think the difference is that our a.h.'s, as you put it, are in the White House. And the dead are in Fallujah. There are jerks everywhere, yes, but when you are the biggest, richest, most powerful jerk on the block, your errors affect everybody else. The French said, over and over again, there are no weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq does not represent a threat to the US. Why start another Vietnam when there are so many positive contributions the US could make to the development of peace in the the rest of the world. The US knew better, but hace la vista gorda. Bush won the election, there is no doubt about that, but people wept at Stalin's funeral, and Fidel Castro is wildly popular in Cuba...vox populi is not always vox Dei. Don´t play dumb. The world is enraged by American policy. If you support American policy, that is your right, and if you think the Europeans are wrong for opposing US policy, that is also your right, but don´t say you don´t "understand..." Listen! Evaluate.
Being nice is OK when visiting Grandma, but what´s happening in the Middle East, partly because of religious fanaticism by Moslems, and partly because of religious fanaticism by Evangelicals and Jews, is not nice. As to the Europeans not understanding that Bush was elected, I strongly disagree. The Europeans remember that Hitler was elected by a proportional representation system very much like our electoral college. The Europeans know that a whole people can allow itself to be led down the garden path. We have already killed five times as many people in Iraq as died on 9-11. How much vengeance against the wrong people is enough to slake the thirst of our peace-loving Christian country?


----------



## shoal22

I think a recent poll showed that most Europeans think that the American people are great but are non too keen on the US Govt. in particular the foreign policy.


----------



## Silvia

David, you're so wise. I liked what you typed. Anyway, one way or another, we always end up talking about politics!


----------



## Tomasoria

Just to add mor fuel to this fire...We, Europeans, should start thinking what we can do for this ill world...O.K we're building up a nice thing: The E.U. And what else?? Unfortunately our own country's interests are the main obstacle to balance USA power in this world...And remember, whenever we needed the americans to save us, here they came: remember the WWII and how Clinton's solved the balcanic mess while the european were entangled in endless talks of how get things right.


----------



## vachecow

silviap said:
			
		

> My "signature" doesn't imply I dislike Americans. It's just a joke.


I found it funny>>>but then again i have a russian friend and we trade jokes back and forth, so i guess that i am used to it


----------



## CrazyFroggy

pollyb said:
			
		

> I am confused and upset by the apparent dislike of Americans from most of the Europeans communicating on this forum. I have always heard of the French attitude towards Americans as none too friendly but have only heard good things from fellow Americans who have visited that country, but on this forum the hostility is very obvious. In particular there is a sign off from Silviap reading "And I long for the day when the Russian will say to the American people _and you were laughing at us?_ I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at there.?
> We are generally a really nice people, ofcourse like all countries we do have our share of a.h.'s and jerks. but aren't they everywhere?
> comments please from others about feelings towards Americans?
> thank you
> Pollyb



I'm the first french to post in this thread...  
If think there's a real dislike of the current Bush administration Policy. But is it a dislike of americans? It's not! Of course you'll find here some jerks thinking it's the same. It's incredible to see how people who most of time don't know each other think they do because there government don't agree, or because they seen something on TV... where is our free will?
My former neighbours where americans, from Florida, and they were very suprised when they went back to US and peolple asked them "Waou, and how did you live there, did you have problems with french people and bla bla bla?". Did they themselves experienced something bad here, or did they simply look Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on Fox News?
I think they never came here, and  people I know here bashing the US have never been there too. Shall I dislike americans because my cousin living in NY was told to shut her mouth when speaking french? I will not fall in this trap. That's ignorance and stupidity!
My wife is Dutch, my son too, my brother in law is italian, my 2nd sister is living in London, my cousin married an american, she's living in NY.
I will not become anti-someone because he's  anti-me, but just because I don't want to look like him!
PS: I did not understand  silviap's comment but have also a look at "agx" post.... We are surrounded...
My feeling about americans is good, they are nice and cool people, and almost half of them (they are much more than in France   ) share my views.
Have a nice day (or night may be)

CF


----------



## quehuong

DDT,

Where should subtlety be when passion explodes?

Polly,



> There are some people living below the Mason Dixon line who are still fighting the Civil War!! Unfortunately prejudice is a world-wide problem.



Shall not disagree with you there.

When I was little my mom taught me this:

Politics is like a double-edged blade.  One is very visible in broad daylight.  It is almost impossible to deny its existence even when darkness envelops everything.  One is so distorted by light.  It illudes us and tantalizes us to doubt and deny its existence.​


----------



## DDT

quehuong said:
			
		

> DDT,
> 
> Where should subtlety be when passion explodes?



What do you mean?  

DDT


----------



## cuchuflete

DDT said:
			
		

> What do you mean?
> 
> DDT



DDT- Of course QH should answer for himself.  To me the words mean that when we become impassioned, we are often blinded to all but the brightest lights, the loudest noises, and we miss all the beautiful, intriguing nuances.

Un abrazo,
Cuchu


----------



## ishatar

Hi Pollyb.

I think you might be interested by this article:
http://www.understandfrance.org/France/Intercultural2.html#ancre171126

And by this quote, from the same site:


> Q: I was in France and everyone was nice to me : how come ?
> A: Many Americans believe that France is violently anti-American and that Americans will be ill-treated when in France. Nothing substantiates this prejugé and this question is just irrelevant. Remember that criticizing American policy is not criticizing individual Americans. For this reason, comments like " the last thing the French would want to see is the crowning of a Yank as Tour champ.. " or " There were, for example, few signs of war-related anti-Americanism at the French Open. " (both in Time magazine, July 7, 2003) are just as stupid as saying " I had a cup of coffee with my neighbour and he did not try to kill me ". I receive many messages or questions of this kind (see one) and it is extremely depressing for me that they can even be formulated.


----------



## OlivierG

I agree with this quote, ishatar.
When somebody points out a bad side of yourself, it's much easier to consider it is due to an irrational hate and think about yourself as a victim than trying to understand his point of view.

I'm afraid it is a psychological issue, valid for both sides of the ocean. The only way to get rid of this is probably to know better each other, and to see behind what is said by the media. 

I have been amazed by the French anti-americanism as it has been described in the American media, but, shame on me, I also believed in what I read in papers about French bashing in the US ("freedom fries", etc). I was probably wrong too, even if I unfortunately received an e-mail message starting by "Dear cheese-eating surrender monkey". But I consider myself as smart enough not to generalize this to the feeling of a whole country.


----------



## cuchuflete

OlivierG said:
			
		

> I agree with this quote, ishatar.
> When somebody points out a bad side of yourself, it's much easier to consider it is due to an irrational hate and think about yourself as a victim than trying to understand his point of view.
> 
> I'm afraid it is a psychological issue, valid for both sides of the ocean. The only way to get rid of this is probably to know better each other, and to see behind what is said by the media.
> 
> I have been amazed by the French anti-americanism as it has been described in the American media, but, shame on me, I also believed in what I read in papers about French bashing in the US ("freedom fries", etc). I was probably wrong too, even if I unfortunately received an e-mail message starting by "Dear cheese-eating surrender monkey". But I consider myself as smart enough not to generalize this to the feeling of a whole country.



Olivier,

Thank you for more reasoned words on this topic.  I may be accused of American basing in some of my realistic, objective comments.  Here's one more.  The person who wrote the e-mail "starting by "Dear cheese-eating surrender monkey"." clearly has not enjoyed the magnificent variety of flavorful French cheeses, or has a palate deadened by what passes for cheese in the US.  

As a youth, I hitch-hiked through your country, and despite my nearly total lack of spoken French, I was received with tremendous generosity and kindness.  In later years, I traveled and worked in France, and was again well received.  This past summer, I attempted to reciprocate the good feelings by hosting a young French student in my home for a month. Do I sometimes take issue with French policy?  Of course. Do I frequently(!!!) take issue with the policies of the American regime?  Absolutely.  None of this is 'bashing'.

I feel bad for the bashers, and those who feel bashed.  Both seem to lack the intellectual depth you and Ishatar have displayed.

ciao,
Cuchu


----------



## garryknight

cuchufléte said:
			
		

> The person who wrote the e-mail "starting by "Dear cheese-eating surrender monkey"." clearly has not enjoyed the magnificent variety of flavorful French cheeses, or has a palate deadened by what passes for cheese in the US.


 At the time that the French government questioned the advisability (and validity) of sending troops into Iraq, I'm afraid I literally laughed out loud when I heard that some people from the US had decided to call French fries 'freedom fries' in protest. They'd obviously overlooked the fact that it's the people of the US that started calling them 'French fries' in the first place. And, no, I'm not American bashing, just highlighting how people (from anywhere in the world) can look more than a little stupid by not following the simple rule of 'put brain in gear, then (and only then) open mouth'.


----------



## rob.returns

I find American Government funny. Hugely funny, the big deal! They are the most powerful yet they are the most insecure. They carry a big stick but most of the time they hit their own @ss*s. I think this would go on for years, and a lot of people will laugh about it.


----------



## modgirl

rob.returns said:
			
		

> I find American Government funny. Hugely funny, the big deal! They are the most powerful yet they are the most insecure. They carry a big stick but most of the time they hit their own asses. I think this would go on for years, and a lot of people will laugh about it.


 
The United States is flawed in many ways, just as the Philippines and every other country on earth.  However, if I were ever accused of a serious crime (or even a minor one), this is exactly the country where I'd want to be tried.


----------



## rob.returns

modgirl said:
			
		

> However, if I were ever accused of a serious crime (or even a minor one), this is exactly the country where I'd want to be tried.


 
Yah a lot of lawyers. I do agree.
They are literally having lawyers for breakfast. 
Even sons or daughters could sue their dad or mom for not knowing how to cook a turkey properly...funny indeed.


----------



## modgirl

rob.returns said:
			
		

> Yah a lot of lawyers. I do agree.
> They are literally having lawyers for breakfast.
> Even sons or daughters could sue their dad or mom for not knowing how to cook a turkey properly...funny indeed.


 
Sorry Rob, but it has nothing to do with the number of lawyers.  It has to do with the justice system.  Is it perfect in the United States?  Hardly.  However, I believe it works most of the time.

Btw, before you laugh at other governments, I'd take a good hard look at your own.  Except that it isn't funny.


----------



## rob.returns

Im not saying our government is perfect. Nah, its not. But if you'll see the title of this thread its "American Bashing." 

I'm not actually bashing American as a matter of fact I love Lenny Kravitz, John Denver, Garth Brooks, etc. As they say American Dream.

The government nowadays $*cks . Where was The good ol' days with Roosevelts, Washington, etc? where they value power as responsibility and not simply power alone.

I think U.S. is (not knowing) bashing the world, that's why the world bounces back. Isolation is inevitable im afraid.

Im not a serious person so I think It would be still funny..
With all due respect modgirl, accept criticism it's a sign of intelligence.
Thanks!



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Sorry Rob, but it has nothing to do with the number of lawyers. It has to do with the justice system. Is it perfect in the United States? Hardly. However, I believe it works most of the time.
> 
> Btw, before you laugh at other governments, I'd take a good hard look at your own. Except that it isn't funny.


----------



## BasedowLives

people that dislike other people based on their nationality are ignorant, plain and simple.

I've only been to 1 country in Europe (Spain), and everyone i ran in to was very kind.  When i told them i was american, they were still kind.  I had talked to a few of them about their sentiments towards americans, and they recognize that there's a difference between the actions of a government, and the people of the country.


----------



## rob.returns

Don't get me wrong BaseLoWlives buddy, I'm not into its people. It's the government that makes it wrong.

In my belief I know that U.S wants to show the world that it cares, they want to share the freedom that they have. The modern democracy. They want to save lives. 
I don't know very much about foreign policy. But 'tis I know, they're driving it the wrong way. The aim is there, but the process, as we can see is dull. Forcing situations will not help.

That's why the mistake of the government is being carried upon by its people. Then American hatred comes in. But personally I don't hate the U.S. 
It is sometimes their drastic decision that drives other countries nuts.

HOpe I've cleared this.


----------



## xav

pollyb said:
			
		

> I am confused and upset by the apparent dislike of Americans from most of the Europeans communicating on this forum. I have always heard of the French attitude towards Americans as none too friendly but have only heard good things from fellow Americans who have visited that country, but on this forum the hostility is very obvious. In particular there is a sign off from Silviap reading "And I long for the day when the Russian will say to the American people _and you were laughing at us?_ I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at there.?
> We are generally a really nice people, ofcourse like all countries we do have our share of a.h.'s and jerks. but aren't they everywhere?
> comments please from others about feelings towards Americans?
> thank you
> Pollyb


 
Dear Polly

Your questions show that Americans begin to ask themselves what is exactly behind the limits of North America ; good thing !
(excuse my poor english - and correct it, please)

As a Frenchman, living in Paris, I'd like to add a few things to all the very intelligent (acute ?) ones you've already can read above. In the european, and especially french, various feelings about America, there are at least five different parts.

1) jealousness ; Europe has destroyed itself in two Wars and America took the leadership. After all, it is perhaps normal that the richest economy of the world suffers a bit of jealousness... Our economy is dominated, it's hard for us.
We think about France as he country of freedom, but one feels much more "libre" in the US.

2) fear ; the economic success of the liberal system menaces our culture and way of life. We don't like much to have to work always more and more (the french "35 hours" are, of course, completely stupid), so we don't like workoholics, as I think you say (no equivalent in french, of course).
As a matter of fact, America's economy is not so much a menace as the Chinese, the Indian or even, for us, the Eastern Europe ones, in which salaries are much lower and will remain so for a while. That makes our economy go worse, whith not much place for not young, experienced, clever, multilingual, white and well-trained people. Our streets are more and more filled with rather young "clochards", some of this country, some of elsewhere. Thirty years ago, "clochards" were usually old and happy, they had more or less chosen that way of life. If they wanted to work, there was always a way.
But we see those results of globalization as a result of the Anglo-saxon way of seeing economy. Efficace, mais inhumaine.
Moreover, we know in Europe that the American "double deficit" will produce, soon or late -probably soon, when the Chinese will stop buying American mortgages-, a collapse which will spread into a splendid world economy collapse, like in the '30s. Hence poverty and wars all around the world.

The American law system, with its armies (dyst)(= do you say that ?) of english-speaking money-making lawyers, is spreading over the world.

This fear spreads much on the language field too. Our beautiful and subtle language is menaced by this awful nose-spoken one without any correct vowel !  We _must_ learn it to have a chance in the world of tomorrow, in which not only Brussel's technocrats, but even Renault's leaders are now reading and writing. We don't love that much.

3) lack of understanding ; we have become pacifists after the 1st WW (at least the Frenchs), after the 2d one (Germans), and we cannot understand US haven't. 
The US "black and white" vision of the world seems to us rather stupid, especially when we look at the way US act in South America.
We no longer are christians (alas !) and we don't understand how the US still are - and how those christians may invade Iraq on the base of government's lies - and how this christian governement might lie so rudely (dyst). All that had a big smell of oil...
We've worked hard to try to avoid you that big mistake, hoping you weren't going into a second Vietnam. Since the Crusades, we know that Orient is complicated and hot-minded (dyst) ; the Shi'ites were very helful by assassinating the Sunnites leaders we were fighting against. You are learning all that now. 
We just hope you aren't going now to go back home, letting Kurds, Sunnites and Shi'ites killing each other for years...

4) American tourists in Paris are especially loud-speaking, and often fat. We highly prefer the Chinese ones, who are beginning to appear. Sorry to say that ; probably we see and hear more the fat and loud-speaking tourists than the discreete (dyst) ones...
The problem of tourism is that it destroys its own object. You come to see another civilisation and you want everybody to speak American English... 
Nevertheless, we are in progress on that field.
That progress is a cause of fear for some of us (see 2 above, about language).

5) admiration - feeding 1 above. If we are able to discuss so, thanks to the 1985 "Star war" program of the old cow-boy - what was his name, déjà ? McRonald ?  


I like America. 
I hope I haven't hurt you and would like to chat further on that point, if you want.


----------



## modgirl

Bonjour Xav,



			
				xav said:
			
		

> We think about France as he country of freedom


 
Par chance, avez-vous lu le livre *La guerre **à outrances: Comment la presse nous a d**ésinform**és sur l'Irak* de Alain Hertoghe?


(*All-out War: How the press lied to us about Iraq* by Alain Hertoghe)




> We no longer are christians (alas !) and we don't understand how the US still are


 
The US has separation of church and state. We are not a Christian nation.




> You come to see another civilisation and you want everybody to speak American English...


 
I speak French in Paris and probably 85% of the time receive a reply in English. My French is not great, but I try. Does it matter? I'm also not fat, and I do not speak in a loud American voice. Perhaps, in Paris, you are expecting someone different than I so you don't realize that I'm an American. Once a stereotype has been planted, it spreads so wildly that those who don't fit the stereotype are hidden or conveniently ignored.

(By the way, I don't believe "dyst" is an English word)


----------



## Benjy

mmm.
i dont want to add fuel to the fire but you know what? i was speaking to an italian man who is a friend of mine who has been living in france for about 1 years. i lived there for a couple. between we couldnt think of one concrete example where we had met someone who had nice things to say about america. i'm not saying that such french people who liek the states dont exist, i just havent had the good fortune to come across them. either that or they just arent as vocal as the anti american crew.

this isnt to say that i dont think that french people arent kind. i was struggling with my hold-all and bike bag on the way to the bus station at ferney voltaire the other week and an old man stopped his car and asked me if i needed a ride anywhere 

an example might be lance armstrong. people just cannot let this go. we now have someone dragging up a blood sample frozen in 1999. i guess though on this score then english are just as bad. i read an article claiming that the french didnt like him because he refused to learn french. i found that rather odd as i have seen him give televised after race interviews in french to the french press on french tv. eh?

there is something about the states that tends to annoy europeans in general. i couldnt exactly say what it is though


----------



## modgirl

Benjy said:
			
		

> there is something about the states that tends to annoy europeans in general. i couldnt exactly say what it is though


 
Every country has obnoxious and rude people. Unfortunately, a small minority with very loud voices tends to drown out the hundreds of wonderful and polite people, and those loud voices can be mistaken to represent all of the people.

Personally, I very much love Paris and France. I certainly don't agree with many aspects of their governmental policies. And sure, I have met some rude and obnoxious French people there, but I tend to ignore them and concentrate on the extremely kind, patient, and generous people, both strangers and those who have become friends.

I can't begin to deny for a moment that there are some real SOBs from the States, and I cringe when they open their passports. However, I wish more people wouldn't judge an entire nation of people on the actions of either the government or the actions of some very rude Americans.

It's quite a sinking feeling to travel to a new (to you) country with a big smile and enthusiasm and excitement for the trip only to be met with snotty remarks such as, "Oh, you're from America. We hate George Bush. We hate America."

That situation has occurred twice with me. Fortunately, the other warm and welcoming people quickly snuffed out any lasting impressions that might have been left by their crass comrades.


----------



## Vanda

shoal22 said:
			
		

> I think a recent poll showed that most Europeans think that the American people are great but are non too keen on the US Govt. in particular the foreign policy.


 
As for our part of the world (non-european) I think Shoal made a point. In fact people don't like American foreign policy, not Americans themselves, most of the time.
I know plenty of students who don't study English because ,* quoting*:
_I hate USA_. I always take it as joke and reply: So, study it because of 
England, Australia, and some other places where English is spoken.
On the other hand, hundreds of them have the goal to go to the USA to
work there, even crossing Mexican border, jeopardizing their lives in
order to achieve the dream of working in a place they know they'll have
opportunities that their own country won't give them.


----------



## cuchuflete

As I read the most recent posts here, I am trying to put my mind in the mode of a European or South American looking at, responding to the U. S.  What would I see, and how would I feel about it?

I suppose I might see a very large and powerful country that seems to do what it pleases, with little apparent (!) regard for the effects of its actions on others.  I would perceive it to be self-serving (just like the foreign policy of every nation on earth?) and arrogant.  I would feel frustrated, like a normal, ordinary student playing in a park, when a very large, strong bully comes along and takes away my ball.  

What would I do?  I would certainly have unkind things to say about the bully.  I might let my feelings about the bully spread to include every person from his neighborhood, whether I had every seen them or not.  

Would my reaction be correct?  

What's "correct"?


----------



## clipper

I think we should all acknowlewdge (without getting a superiority complex) that here on these forums, we are relativlely educated people capable of rational thought. The exported culture through tourism isn´t always like that. 

Being a Englishman in Spain I recently met a pleasant couple whilst hiking and they were overheard by my partner to say "I think he´s English but he´s too nice". This is simply because the Spanish view of British people in general is "drunk, beach loving football fans" as that is the image we export.

The USA, like it or not, exports an image of being blindly in support of their own government policies and not having a massively understanding concept of the rest of the world, this is backed up in my experience by tourists I see here in Spain. I´m glad that I don´t fit in with the stereotype of a "Brit abroad" but the problem with generalisations is that they´re generally true....


----------



## fenixpollo

I agree with 98% of the rational statements in this thread  , except two:


			
				clipper said:
			
		

> 1) the problem with generalisations is that they´re generally true....


Generalizations have a _grain_ of truth, which means they are partially true for most of the people. The problem comes when one starts believing that the generalizations and stereotypes are mostly true for most of the people. 


			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> 2) The U.S. has separation of church and state. We are not a Christian nation.


 While the intention of the U.S. Constitution was to separate church and government, the U.S. *is* a Protestant Christian nation. In the last poll I saw, _a majority_ _(edit: 87% Cuchuflete corrects my figure in post #64)_ of Americans identified themselves as Protestant; the President uses his Protestant faith to make decisions and to justify them; and the role of religion (not churches) in official matters (currency, the Pledge, courts, evolution, 10 commandments) is still a hot issue.

Like modgirl and others, I have experienced rude remarks, intolerance and even discrimination while living and traveling abroad. While I think these people's behavior is wrong...





			
				basedowlives said:
			
		

> people that dislike other people based on their nationality are ignorant, plain and simple.


 ...I also think that the feelings behind that behavior are, in many cases, justified. 





			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I would feel frustrated, like a normal, ordinary student playing in a park, when a very large, strong bully comes along and takes away my ball.


 I feel happy and lucky to live in the U.S., but I am also ashamed of many of my government's actions and many of my compatriots' attitudes.


----------



## clipper

Not wanting to argue with anyone, I will justify my comments as follows:

 generalization, generalisation -- the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances (from dictionary definition.net)

I have used the term based on the properties of instances abstracted by people with whom I have spoken and from my own abstractions of other and similar instances (referring to both generalisations of the British abroad and North American tourists in Europe), which by definition gives rise to these generlisations quoted in my post. 

Obviously, according to the definition, the validity of the generalisation depends on the instances from which each person can abstract common properties. I hoped that by not just using the American tourist example but including the instances of behaviour by my compatriots also I would be demonstrating that I am able to see the issue with a balanced view, nevertheless I feel justified in what I wrote.

Sorry if it didn´t sit well with you fenix !


----------



## fenixpollo

clipper said:
			
		

> Sorry if it didn´t sit well with you fenix !


It's not that your comment didn't sit well with me, and I should have said that I only _partially_ disagreed with you.  After all, I can't dispute the definition you quoted!  

It's just that people who use generalizations to form their attitudes about a group are doing a disservice to the individuals in that group.  By giving credence to the idea that generalizations are generally true, it's easy to fall into the trap of prejudice.  I try to take each individual separately -- although it's very difficult, I know, and many would argue that it's contrary to human nature.  Even so, I encourage others to do the same.  That's all I was trying to do.


----------



## clipper

Fenix,

I agree completely, its that generally  people are "American bashing" (the original topic raised...) but you are 100% correct in that this "bashing" should not be directed at any individual without a perfectly justifiable reason.

I will not direct any general comments (on any topic) at any individual in the same way that the hikers I met in Spain did not direct their generalisations of the English, publically at least, towards me.

Thank the world for rational thinkers.


----------



## modgirl

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> While the intention of the U.S. Constitution was to separate church and government, the U.S. *is* a Protestant Christian nation. In the last poll I saw, 87% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant


 
Oh, I'm not doubting that the majority of Americans are Protestant at all. However, the nation was has its roots in *Judeo-Christian* traditions, as opposed to solely Christian.

Here's one reference:

*The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian. *

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040330.shtml


----------



## VenusEnvy

Mod: I'm not saying that this source isn't credible, or whether the statement is true or not. But, the website you cite is called *Townhall.com, Conservative News and Information*. I mean, come on . . . .   What I'd really like is to see a source from an unbiased agency . . .


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Mod: I'm not saying that this source isn't credible, or whether the statement is true or not. But, the website you cite is called *Townhall.com, Conservative News and Information*. I mean, come on . . . .  What I'd really like is to see a source from an unbiased agency . . .


 
It was one of the first things that came up on Google!

However, I'm surprised that you would question the Judeo-Christian roots.  I thought it was common knowledge.


----------



## Swettenham

Some people in my own family fit many of the negative stereotypes about Americans. They are overweight, self-satisfied, consumerist, touristy (even in our own country), and naive. They are also hard-working, loving, compassionate and practical-minded people. 

Knowing their life stories and the struggles they have been through, I can only have great respect and admiration for them. They worked their rear-ends off to provide a better life for their own children than the lives they had had growing up. If I were to see them walking about as tourists, with their sun-visors and fanny-packs and digital cameras, I might sneer. But because I know their hearts, and what they have gone through to be able to afford such vacations, I consider them decent, even noble human beings.

But then, that's just a few Americans I know. I can't speak for us all.


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> It was one of the first things that came up on Google!


So? . . .   



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> However, I'm surprised that you would question the Judeo-Christian roots.  I thought it was common knowledge.


Let me reiterate: 





			
				VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Mod: I'm not saying that this source isn't credible, or *whether the statement is true or not*.


Where did I question it???


----------



## modgirl

Venus, are you suggesting that the source must have politically liberal thoughts for it to be valid for you?

If not, then what was the purpose of your post?


----------



## xav

modgirl said:
			
		

> Bonjour Xav,
> 
> 
> 
> Par chance, avez-vous lu le livre *La guerre **à outrances: Comment la presse nous a d**ésinform**és sur l'Irak* de Alain Hertoghe?
> 
> 
> (*All-out War: How the press lied to us about Iraq* by Alain Hertoghe)


 
No, modgirl - is it about desinformation to US or french people ? 

NB. I'd say 'Par hasard', no 'Par chance' - F chance = E luck, you know






			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> I speak French in Paris and probably 85% of the time receive a reply in English. My French is not great, but I try. I'm also not fat, and I do not speak in a loud American voice. Perhaps, in Paris, you are expecting someone different than I so you don't realize that I'm an American. Once a stereotype has been planted, it spreads so wildly that those who don't fit the stereotype are hidden or conveniently ignored.


 
I'm much surprised about this result of a personal poll - I suppose you address usually not to people in the street, but to hostesses, who by profession have to answer to you in english if they understand you are an english-speaker.



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Does it matter?


 
I think it really does that you try to speak the language of a country you often go to, and that it helps you much to be helped, to understand and to love people.



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> (By the way, I don't believe "dyst" is an English word)


 
I've written : dyst = do you say that ? 
It's a new acronym I'll propose to Wordreference. 
If you have time to answer to those four or five "dyst"-questions...


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> Venus, are you suggesting that the source must have politically liberal thoughts for it to be valid for you?


Wow, sometimes, I think you're reading a totally different post...

This is what I said:


			
				VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> What I'd really like is to see a source from an unbiased agency . . .


Now, even a liberal agency would have its own biases, no?



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> If not, then what was the purpose of your post?


To express my opinion. This is a forum for discussion, right? I don't question the purposes of your stating your opinions, so I'm not sure why you question mine...


----------



## Swettenham

Though the United States is a nation in which conservative Christians are the most influential group, keep in mind that their agenda does not always win the day.  Abortion rights were upheld by Roe v. Wade, evolution is taught in school.  I don't think it can be clearly demonstrated that the US is or is not a Christian nation-- whereas it is fairly obvious, to take one example, that Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation.  

I would say our legalistic roots are as much Roman and Anglo-Saxon as they are Judeo-Christian.


----------



## cuchuflete

A slight correction...87% Protestant is not accurate.
Have a look here: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

Here is a summary of just the Christian sect/religions/groups...pick whatever title you prefer:



> [CODE]Protestant 	53 	53 	52
> Catholic 	23 	23 	24
> Mormon
> (Latter-day Saints) 	2 	2 	2
> Orthodox 	1 	1 	*
> Non-denominational 	1 	0 	0
> Something else (Specify) 	1 	* 	2
> Not practicing any religion   	1 	0 	0
> Don't know/Refused 	2 	3 	2
> TOTAL CHRISTIAN 	84% 	82% 	82%[/CODE]


----------



## modgirl

xav said:
			
		

> No, modgirl - is it about desinformation to US or french people ?


 
It's a book written by a French journalist about how the French government put very strong pressure on journalists to cover the Iraqi war from a very biased point-of-view. I do not know, but since the book is written in French, I will guess that the intended audience is French.



> NB. I'd say 'Par hasard', no 'Par chance' - F chance = E luck, you know


 
Merci; maybe that's why French people tend to respond to me in English. 





> I wrote : dyst = do you say that?


 
Oh, sorry! I'm glad to know the acronym.




> If you have time to answer to those four or five "dyst"-questions...


 
I'm getting ready to head out the door, but I shall return!


----------



## cuchuflete

Next: Modgirl quotes a single individual who *claims* that 'the nation' calls/defines itself a certain way.

I see no proof of the claim. In recent years, it seems to have become fashionable for many politicians and other public figures to use the cited term, but that's a lot different from "the nation".

Those politicians talk at me; they don't speak for me.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Next: Modgirl quotes a single individual who *claims* that 'the nation' calls/defines itself a certain way.
> 
> I see no proof of the claim. In recent years, it seems to have become fashionable for many politicians and other public figures to use the cited term, but that's a lot different from "the nation".
> 
> Those politicians talk at me; they don't speak for me.


 
I think that my statement is being misunderstood.  I'm not questioning the number of Christians in the United States.  They are clearly a majority.  However, I must say that I've never met an educated American who would say that the US holds its values from more of a Christian tradition as opposed to a Judeo-Christian nation.  

Maybe it's just so obvious that there is no "agency" that must proclaim it!  Sorry, Venus.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> A slight correction...87% Protestant is not accurate.
> Have a look here: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions


 
From a government source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

_It states Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)_ 

Just a FIY post.


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just so obvious that there is no "agency" that must proclaim it!  Sorry, Venus.


That's ok. I only questioned the source because it was posted.


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> That's ok. I only questioned the source because it was posted.


 
Oh, no problem.  The real problem is finding an official source (for nearly anything) without spending a great deal of time!


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> A slight correction...87% Protestant is not accurate.


Thanks for correcting me, cuchu. So 75% is a more correct estimate of Christians in the U.S., or 76% "Judeo-Christians". *It doesn't matter whether you say "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian*", it helps to prove my point: it isn't accurate to say that 'the U.S. has separation of church and state and therefore isn't Christian.'

The only reason that this is relevant to _anything_ is the fact that American religion and religiousness are central issues in the "war against terrorism" and the actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... which are three more reasons that America has been bashed so much of late.


----------



## astronauta

I agree on most things with the exception of the following: 





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> The US has separation of church and state. We are not a Christian nation.


 Modgirl, you cannot really say this until the debate on teaching children in public schools about Darwin's evolution theory versus "Intelligent Design" is settled.

I would post the link, but New Scientist magazine articles are only for subscribers.

Other than that I do like the USA, I like some fashions, telly programs, some movies, the nature and the diversity.


----------



## Everness

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> What I'd really like is to see a source from an unbiased agency . . .



Unbiasedness doesn't exist. All agencies, all individuals, etc. are biased. The difference is that we think that our bias is better or more acceptable than other people's biases.


----------



## Outsider

The problem with Modgirl's source, IMHO, is not that it's biased, but that it merely states that the U.S. is Judeo-Christian, without presenting any evidence, or at best presenting very slim evidence to that effect.


----------



## VenusEnvy

I realize that it's difficult to get rid of ALL biases, but quoting a source that is obviously slanted to one side is a little self-serving . . . 



I knew I should've stayed out of this one . . . .   ::sigh::


----------



## Everness

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I knew I should've stayed out of this one . . . .   ::sigh::



Ah señorita, tendría que haberlo pensado antes...


----------



## asm

modgirl said:
			
		

> Bonjour Xav,
> 
> 
> 
> The US has separation of church and state. We are not a Christian nation.


 
I agree 100% in the first statement, I agree only 50% with the second. My disagreement: Although this country separates government from church that does not mean you are not Christian. 
Remember: ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE ... and IN GOD WE TRUST.

On the other hand, I find this world (not only the USA) very far from Jesus' teachings; for that  case, I'd say that there is no country in the world that could defend its Christianity.


----------



## asm

I am Catholic (so, included in the 75-75%), although I go to church every (almost ) every week, I'd say I practice Christianity just 25% of the time. (I do not share what I have, I do not walk the extra mille, I do not turn my right cheek, I do not give up my comfortable warm meal, I'd do not forgive 70 times 7, nor I left my family to follow Jesus.

If I am a mean American (becuase I am in the "mean" ),  and I represent, in "average" our populations, I'd say that we are 19% Christian. Kidding? Maybe, but we need more than numbers and membership to say we are Christians. 

I indeed said we are a Christian country in a previous post, are we? 

This question belong to another thread, do not answer here.




			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Thanks for correcting me, cuchu. So 75% is a more correct estimate of Christians in the U.S., or 76% "Judeo-Christians". *It doesn't matter whether you say "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian*", it helps to prove my point: it isn't accurate to say that 'the U.S. has separation of church and state and therefore isn't Christian.'
> 
> The only reason that this is relevant to _anything_ is the fact that American religion and religiousness are central issues in the "war against terrorism" and the actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... which are three more reasons that America has been bashed so much of late.


----------



## timpeac

Wow, loads of posts.

Personally I have not come across anti-American feeling in Europe (on a personal level, not in general against "the American system"). That said everyone, everyone, hates ,hates GWB. But we don't hold it against the Americans too much what he gets up to, but I think there is a sneaking reproach for having put the bugger in power in the first place (yeah yeah 51% voted or 49% voted; whatever - your political system put him there - and you know what - I'm a bit cross with you for that, but to dislike an American on a personal level for that is beyond ridiculous). It strikes me like the Nazis in that sense. It's always "oh my grandparents didn't support that rubbish" with the Germans I speak to (some very good friends included) but it confuses me because someone must have. Same with Dubya.

Jealousy has been mentioned quite a bit above. I don't think it is this, but something quite similar, namely impotence. Dubya's actions affect us all very directly yet we cannot vote him in or out. If only we could.


----------



## cuchuflete

modgirl said:
			
		

> From a government source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
> 
> _It states Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)_
> 
> Just a FIY post.



Thanks...it agrees with data I posted while you were out.  All these sources confirm that the 87% Protestant figure was way off.

Back to the 'Judeo-Christian nation" thing:  I doubt anyone would question that that tradition is a very significant part of our culture, but I continue to disagree with characterizing the nation with that term.  I think our tradition of population/culture building through immigration is at least as important, as is the fact sited earlier by a colleague about our legal tradition...a mix of Roman and Anglo-Saxon.   

It may be convenient for some to paint us all with one very broad brush, but that doesn't make it accurate.


----------



## cuchuflete

timpeac said:
			
		

> Jealousy has been mentioned quite a bit above. I don't think it is this, but something quite similar, *namely impotence. Dubya's actions affect us all very directly yet we cannot vote him in or out. If only we could.*



Agreed Tim,

That's what I meant by 'frustration' in the bully example I wrote a while back.
For what little it may be worth, half or more...including non-voters..of Americans feel the same as Europeans and other non-US Western hemisphere residents on this point.  All the more frustrating because under our two term limit for president, we will not have another opportunity to vote him out of office.


----------



## timpeac

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Agreed Tim,
> 
> That's what I meant by 'frustration' in the bully example I wrote a while back.
> For what little it may be worth, half or more...including non-voters..of Americans feel the same as Europeans and other non-US Western hemisphere residents on this point. All the more frustrating because under our two term limit for president, we will not have another opportunity to vote him out of office.


 
The strange thing is in Europe there is not the tiniest weeniest bit of polarisation. It's completely aaaaargh get rid of that @#%&! from my gran to the nationalist radical to the tree hugger to the conservative. But however small a _majority_ of US citizens it may be who voted for him there is obviously a non-small number of USers who support him. It's something we find difficult to understand. That's not to say that the huge number of USers who hate him hate him any less than us, but I presume that you must be a little less stunned that he is in power. I suppose I just presume there must be some reason that that poor excuse for a human being is in power. Even if you are as at a loss as us, that's where the impotence thing kicks in because of course we can be self-righteous about it since we can't change it.


----------



## Swettenham

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Agreed Tim,
> 
> That's what I meant by 'frustration' in the bully example I wrote a while back.
> For what little it may be worth, half or more...including non-voters..of Americans feel the same as Europeans and other non-US Western hemisphere residents on this point.  All the more frustrating because under our two term limit for president, we will not have another opportunity to vote him out of office.


I'm sick of his lies.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Swettenham.

I would take the Wiki article with a grain of salt.  There is no visible groundswell of opinion calling for his impeachment. And I question the box saying John Conyers wants to 'impeach' Karl Rove.  Rove is a political advisor to Bush..I don't even know if his official job is impeachable... deputy chief of staff in charge of policy.

I believe dubya lies with impunity, and has terrible judgement, and I'd be delighted to see him retire prematurely, but I just don't see a strong movement to help that happen.

Tim pointed out why:  roughly half of all voters bought into his lies and philosophy.

They seem less troubled by reality then you and I are, and many want to replace science with sectarian ideology to explain the origins of life _*as they choose to know it.*_  That leaves little time for policy analysis, I suppose.  

Oh, let's not forget that they espouse principals of conservatism.  That must explain the huge and growing deficits combined with the push for revenue reduction: tax cuts.

2+2=7?  2+2=1.5??


----------



## Swettenham

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Tim pointed out why:  roughly half of all voters bought into his lies and philosophy.


Was their much less support for Clinton when he was impeached?

The real problem with firing Bush is that Cheney would be president.

What are we gonna do?  This administration is going to run this country into the ground.  We're bogged down in Iraq, scouring the Middle East for terrorists, and China is politely emerging as our real rival.  To compete with China, our children need to be educated, and a lot of good he's doing in that department!  Furthermore, as you noted, Cuchuflete, our deficit is out of control.  There's nothing conservative about Bush's spending habits.  And just look at the misery he's caused in Iraq, the misery he did nothing to assuage in New Orleans, the ire of (probably) billions around the world, strained alliances, emboldened terrorists...  Everything is stretched to the breaking point.  But I guess I'm preaching to the choir here.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Cuchuflete*
> They seem less troubled by reality then you and I are,



Yes, but Cuchu, many of whom we speak are not "guided" by reality, therefore, how can they be troubled by it?


----------



## modgirl

xav said:
			
		

> If you have time to answer to those four or five "dyst"-questions...


 
I reviewed your post, and you really didn't ask questions but rather made comments on why you feel Americans often wear a bad reputation.

1) Jealousy -- the US guarding what she has, and the rest of the world is a bit resentful. Certainly, it's a possibility. I don't have strong feelings about whether this is true or not.

2) Fear of US economic success invading your country. Actually, this may be true. I do know several French people who are very worried about what they called the new "work ethic" (or rather lack of one) of many people in their 20s and 30s. Personally, I think a healthy attitude about a career is best -- one that balances both work and play. There is no doubt that many workaholics exist in the US; unfortunately, I tend to be one myself. The problem is that the output of a workaholic is naturally going to be greater than those of others and that can cause resentment. 

I believe under the same number, you mention a fear of the English language overtaking French. As I understand it, a French word exists for what we call *e-mail* in English; however, many French are exasperated because the new _mot fr_ançais never caught on. Instead, the English *e-mail* is used! And I do understand that, in general, the French are jealous of their language and do not wish it to be infiltrated with English. So, I'm not sure which is worse: not speaking French in France or speaking unpolished (and grammatically incorrect) French!

3) You wrote "we have become pacifists after the 1st WW (at least the Frenchs), after the 2d one (Germans), and we cannot understand US haven't." You will also recall that in WWII, it took a mere 42 days for hitler to conquer France. I think that many feel the United States must simply take a more proactive stance to ensure that a similar situation will not happen on the here. Again, the French book I mentioned is an exposé on the control of the French government on its press about the war in Iraq. As I recall, no one could dispute the author's allegations, and no one backed them up. They were too afraid of losing their jobs.

Your last point 5) on admiration: I'm not quite certain what you're asking.


----------



## fenixpollo

timpeac said:
			
		

> It's something we find difficult to understand. That's not to say that the huge number of USers who hate him hate him any less than us, but I presume that you must be a little less stunned that he is in power.


 Don't make that assumption, Tim.  I'm just as stunned as you are that he is in power, and I continue to be freshly stunned every time a new poll is published affirming that 40-some percent of Americans still support him despite his latest incompetences.  I'm also 

Are we having this political debate because we feel that George W. Bush is a major cause of "American Bashing?"  Were Americans bashed in the years Before Shrub (B.S.)?

The Judeo-Christian vs Christian debate should be a different thread.  It seems like most people who have posted so far agree that the majority of Americans claim to be Christian to one degree or another.  Let's move on.


----------



## timpeac

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Are we having this political debate because we feel that George W. Bush is a major cause of "American Bashing?" Were Americans bashed in the years Before Shrub (B.S.)?
> .


 
Yes and not particularly respectively. In France when I was there around 8 years ago Americans and American were very popular, at least with the young. I don't think you could say that now and yes I would put that down to American actions as guided by GWB.


----------



## dave250

timpeac said:
			
		

> I think there is a sneaking reproach for having put the bugger in power in the first place (yeah yeah 51% voted or 49% voted; whatever - your political system put him there - and you know what - I'm a bit cross with you for that.


 
I'm a bit cross with us also.
You are right Timpeac, there have been a lot of posts and it's comforting to see so many from my country that share my basic views (Dave, Cuchuflete, David, Fenix, Swettenham, GenJen,...). It gets pretty lonesome down here in Bush country sometimes; cold too!


----------



## Everness

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Don't make that assumption, Tim.  I'm just as stunned as you are that he is in power, and I continue to be freshly stunned every time a new poll is published affirming that 40-some percent of Americans still support him despite his latest incompetences.



The 40% of approval rating is true. However, there's a downward trend that is worrying Republicans. 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/09/09/ratings_drop_for_president_after_storm?mode=PF

My prediction? Hillary will be the next US President, and we'll have to learn to call her "señora presidenta". By the way, she already has my vote...


----------



## Jonegy

Everness said:
			
		

> My prediction? Hillary will be the next US President, and we'll have to learn to call her "señora presidenta". By the way, she already has my vote...


 
Just one little word of warning  -  if your theory is that women are the gentler, more humane sex - let me pass three names before you  ......

Margaret Thatcher  -  Golder Maier  -  Indira Ghandi.


----------



## rob.returns

YOu got it right! you have hit the mark! Straight A for you madam! 

It's the bully analogy that does it...


			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> As I read the most recent posts here, I am trying to put my mind in the mode of a European or South American looking at, responding to the U. S. What would I see, and how would I feel about it?
> 
> I suppose I might see a very large and powerful country that seems to do what it pleases, with little apparent (!) regard for the effects of its actions on others. I would perceive it to be self-serving (just like the foreign policy of every nation on earth?) and arrogant. I would feel frustrated, like a normal, ordinary student playing in a park, when a very large, strong bully comes along and takes away my ball.
> 
> What would I do? I would certainly have unkind things to say about the bully. I might let my feelings about the bully spread to include every person from his neighborhood, whether I had every seen them or not.
> 
> Would my reaction be correct?
> 
> What's "correct"?


----------



## timpeac

Everness said:
			
		

> The 40% of approval rating is true. However, there's a downward trend that is worrying Republicans.
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/09/09/ratings_drop_for_president_after_storm?mode=PF
> 
> My prediction? Hillary will be the next US President, and we'll have to learn to call her "señora presidenta". By the way, she already has my vote...


 
That'll be one in the eye for Bill!


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Hi Pollyb,

First of all, I hope not to offend anyone with my post, but you're asking for an opinion and since I have one... I'm going to share it with you 

Racism and hate (in SMALL amounts) against all countries exists in all of us. I am sure that you have a special sympathy for a few countries while you dislike certain cultures. We all have that, I'm sure of that. I am like that too. However, that doesn't justify that you mistreat a stranger from a country that you dislike, because... you don't know this person! He could have a great heart or he could be a serial-killer.

I have to say that in general Europeans do not sympathize with Americans. Of course, there are Europeans who dream of going to America but in general in Europe we see Americans as a nation who are self-centered and do not have an own culture. 

Personally, if you ask me, I do not sympathize with Americans. I do have to say that I have met nice Americans. I study English and for that reason I have to be in touch and study the culture of English-speaking countries. I have studied American history and although I am not an expert I am well-informed about your country.

If you ask me why I do not sympathize with Americans... well, I see the U.S.A. as a violent country, self-centered, overbearing, fraudulent and as a threat to peace. Why? Well, I don't even think I have to answer that question, I think it's pretty clear. More recently, the war in Iraq has caused a lot of controversy and it's probably the first time that the world's population protests against your country's politics. But Iraq, is not the only reason.

And myself, yes... I've visited your country and I do not like the way I was received in the airport of JFK in New York. I've told myself I will never go to the U.S.A. again unless I have to go for professional reasons.

Of course, I have nothing against the population itself, they are victims too (just see the people of New Orleans). Many Americans are against their country's politics, so as you see I am not a hater or something like that, but for what I know and for my personal experience I do not sympathize with this country.

I hope this does not offend anyone but illustrates an opinion, a controversial one maybe, but the opinion many people share (and many do not dare to say)


----------



## rob.returns

Can we impeach the American People for supporting sex-filled Clinton, the aggressive Bush? I think the AMerican people is more concerned about the Charisma of its great leaders, not their effect on the world.


----------



## timpeac

rob.returns said:
			
		

> Can we impeach the American People for supporting sex-filled Clinton, the aggressive Bush? I think the AMerican people is more concerned about the Charisma of its great leaders, not it's effect on the world.


 
Clinton was incredibly charismatic, agreed, but someone less charismatic than dubya I cannot imagine. I am not a violent person but it requires little more than his gormless simian looks on my TV to make me want to put my fist through the screen!


----------



## rob.returns

I dont know timpeac but I find Bush charismatic...and twice(or so i think) he was "TIME" magazines MAN OF THE YEAR. And I have read a lot of articles him just friendly to other cultures of America(e.g. African, Mexican, Indian, etc.). He knows how to handle people. For me the blame would be the personalities behind him like Karl Rove, Condit...etc. I think they're giving him the wrong advices.





			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> Clinton was incredibly charismatic, agreed, but someone less charismatic than dubya I cannot imagine. I am not a violent person but it requires little more than his gormless simian looks on my TV to make me want to put my fist through the screen!


----------



## Everness

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> If you ask me why I do not sympathize with Americans... well, I see the U.S.A. as a violent country, self-centered, overbearing, fraudulent and as a threat to peace. Why? Well, I don't even think I have to answer that question, I think it's pretty clear. More recently, the war in Iraq has caused a lot of controversy and it's probably the first time that the world's population protests against your country's politics. But Iraq, is not the only reason.
> 
> And myself, yes... I've visited your country and I do not like the way I was received in the airport of JFK in New York. I've told myself I will never go to the U.S.A. again unless I have to go for professional reasons.




I appreciate your candor. Maybe someone in the forum will criticize you for disliking the US (you might add narcisism as another of our qualities  ) However, your post made me think about how one reaches these conclusions. I don't think you get up one morning and say, "I'm going to hate these American bastards." It takes years to develop this type of dislike toward a certain country. 

We are socialized into thinking and feeling this way. Although you list some of the reasons why you don't like the US, I think that the way you were treated at JFK was a critical experience in crystalizing your feelings. I bet that it happened before the invasion of Iraq and it involved some bullying. (I'm somewhat under the influence but bear with me a little bit more.) Then came the war in Iraq and the wounds that had never healed reopened. You correctly saw the US as a bully that was ready to beat up whoever decided to go against its will. What was happening to the world had happened to you. It's called revictimization. 

(I'm sorry: this is not my best b.s.)


----------



## Jonegy

rob.returns said:
			
		

> I dont know timpeac but I find Bush charismatic...and twice(or so i think) he was "TIME" magazines MAN OF THE YEAR. And I have read a lot of articles him just friendly to other cultures of America(e.g. African, Mexican, Indian, etc.). He knows how to handle people. For me the blame would be the personalities behind him like Karl Rove, Condit...etc. I think they're giving him the wrong advices.


 
It is true then - you can fool some of the people some of the time. 

Three cheers for political propaganda


----------



## rob.returns

hahaha. that was funny JOnegy..But I said "I THINK" not "IM SURE"...ANd not only positive things about him that I have read. Also negative buddy. But I still find him charismatic.





			
				Jonegy said:
			
		

> It is true then - you can fool some of the people some of the time.
> 
> Three cheers for political propaganda


----------



## LV4-26

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> If you ask me why I do not sympathize with Americans...(......)
> Of course, I have nothing against the population itself, (...)


Isn't there some kind of contradiction here ? What difference do you make between the "Americans" and the American "population" ?
Obviously, if one looks carefully at the reasons you give, nothing concerns the American individual citizen. It's all about the administration, regulations,... civilization maybe.

I wonder why people from all over the world (and I include myself) tend to identify the American people with their laws, administration, representatives and so on. 
See how the Americans in general had a much better image (in France, at least) at the time of Clinton.

Next time you elect a president, you'd better watch it : don't forget you're electing the Master of the World so *we* are concerned as well  .
See : when Everness said that Hilary had his vote I was all for saying she'd got mine too. Only afterwards did I realize I wasn't supposed to vote in an American election  

Incidentally I think it might be worth saying that many of my favorite public figures (contemporary or otherwise) are American.
But still your legal and judicial system remains beyond my comprehension, to say the least.


----------



## rob.returns

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I wonder why people from all over the world (and I include myself) tend to identify the American people with their laws, administration, representatives and so on.


*I think this would apply to all countries LV4-26...every country is identified with the ones you mentioned not just Americans. *



			
				LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Next time you elect a president, you'd better watch it : don't forget you're electing the Master of the World so *we* are concerned as well


 
*However, I do agree with you about this. History have told us that the American president is one of the most powerful and most influential. Thus the world is concerned when boo boos are made by the American people(election day i mean) or the president himself. A lot of lives are at stake with every decision made by an American president. Even the fragile world itself is on gamble. Thats why its critical for other countries to judge America(whether they like it or not)*


----------



## Everness

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> See : when Everness said that Hilary had his vote I was all for saying she'd got mine too. Only afterwards did I realize I wasn't supposed to vote in an American election



Oh, don't worry. I can get you an ID that will allow you to vote, get married, etc. I'm currently running a special promotion for French people. Just send me your credit card information. Ok?


----------



## cuchuflete

rob.returns said:
			
		

> But I still find him charismatic.


In a Ferdinand Marcos sort of way..........


----------



## rob.returns

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> In a Ferdinand Marcos sort of way..........


 
Yah, except that the latter is D-E-A-D. I'm an anti Marcos but Im afraid I should agree with you chuchuflete that some leaders are masters of poiseness. Like Hitler to Germany, like Mussolini to Italy, like Arafat to Palestine. Even though they commit mistakes. Thanks!


----------



## cuchuflete

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> But still your legal and judicial system remains beyond my comprehension, to say the least.


  Jean-Michel, you have clearly been practising, with effective results,  to adopt the characteristics of most voters here.  As soon as you find the actions of the legislature either incomprehensible, or of no interest whatsoever, you will qualify for citizenship.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Isn't there some kind of contradiction here ? What difference do you make between the "Americans" and the American "population" ?
> Obviously, if one looks carefully at the reasons you give, nothing concerns the American individual citizen. It's all about the administration, regulations,... civilization maybe.


Where is the contradiction? The fact that I do not sympathize with someone does not mean that I have something against this person. I think it's pretty logical.
What I actually meant with "I have nothing against the population" means that if I hated the population I wouldn't talk to any Americans, I would just discriminate them, and I don't. I don't like the country, that's a fact, but I've met very nice people who come from there.



> I wonder why people from all over the world (and I include myself) tend to identify the American people with their laws, administration, representatives and so on.


Well, the people don't write their laws, but in theory they live in a democracy and after all, they choose their government. You see, if you live in a dictatorship you, as citizen, are not responsible for what your government does, but if you live in a democracy you're not responsible either. Who is responsible? If you ask the government, the people voted for them. So in the end... nobody is responsible but the disasters happen.



> See how the Americans in general had a much better image (in France, at least) at the time of Clinton.


 That's right, here too.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Everness said:
			
		

> I appreciate your candor. Maybe someone in the forum will criticize you for disliking the US (you might add narcisism as another of our qualities  )


I know, for that reason I wanted to make it clear that I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to be offensive.



> However, your post made me think about how one reaches these conclusions. I don't think you get up one morning and say, "I'm going to hate these American bastards." It takes years to develop this type of dislike toward a certain country.


Exactly. You see... I've always been interested in recent history and politics (not actively but I like being informed). It's not that I simply dislike a country. I am pretty sensitive, too much sometimes, and I'm not the kind of person who just hates.



> We are socialized into thinking and feeling this way. Although you list some of the reasons why you don't like the US, I think that the way you were treated at JFK was a critical experience in crystalizing your feelings.
> I bet that it happened before the invasion of Iraq and it involved some bullying. (I'm somewhat under the influence but bear with me a little bit more.)


I guess you're right, personal experiences always leave a strong feeling  
I was there in 2000, so it was before the 9-11. I'll tell you what happened... as we arrived we had to wait on a queue (the place was full with police), then after we got our stamp from the immigration police we picked up our baggage. We had to walk for a while and leave the baggage again so that it could be checked again. Well, I remember we had two suitcases and around one of them we had an extra security band with a pad-lock. When we got our suitcases back the security band wasn't there anymore and one of the suitcases (which had three openings) had one of the openings broken and the other two were forced. I can tell you I've travelled a lot around Europe and I've been in Asia too (Thailand and Indonesia) and I haven't seen this disrespect anywhere. Of course, I'm not blaming the population for that or something, this is exclusively a criticism for the police and the airport.




> Then came the war in Iraq and the wounds that had never healed reopened. You correctly saw the US as a bully that was ready to beat up whoever decided to go against its will. What was happening to the world had happened to you. It's called revictimization.


Iraq was definitely the climax, as LV4-26 says, before that people even sympathized with Clinton. Nobody forgets that the U.S.A. is a war country though, but if we disregard that, we were actually o.k. with it lately...


----------



## LV4-26

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> Where is the contradiction? The fact that I do not sympathize with someone does not mean that I have something against this person. I think it's pretty logical.


You're right. I'd just misunderstood the word _sympathize._ Now I've looked it up I realize I'd been misled by its usual French meaning.


----------



## Outsider

All politicians are charismatic. It's part of their job.


----------



## Everness

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> I know, for that reason I wanted to make it clear that I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to be offensive.
> 
> Don't worry, some of us as just too full of sh*t.
> 
> Exactly. You see... I've always been interested in recent history and politics (not actively but I like being informed). It's not that I simply dislike a country. I am pretty sensitive, too much sometimes, and I'm not the kind of person who just hates.
> 
> Yep, you clearly don't come across as a whacko or hatemonger.
> 
> 
> I guess you're right, personal experiences always leave a strong feeling
> I was there in 2000, so it was before the 9-11. I'll tell you what happened... as we arrived we had to wait on a queue (the place was full with police), then after we got our stamp from the immigration police we picked up our baggage. We had to walk for a while and leave the baggage again so that it could be checked again. Well, I remember we had two suitcases and around one of them we had an extra security band with a pad-lock. When we got our suitcases back the security band wasn't there anymore and one of the suitcases (which had three openings) had one of the openings broken and the other two were forced. I can tell you I've travelled a lot around Europe and I've been in Asia too (Thailand and Indonesia) and I haven't seen this disrespect anywhere. Of course, I'm not blaming the population for that or something, this is exclusively a criticism for the police and the airport.
> 
> You are lucky. If you think that entering the US is an issue, you should listen to some freaky stories about how some legal  immigrants who don't come from Northern-European countries are treated at the INS offices when they apply for legal residence or citizenship. If you pay attention to our discussions in this forum, you'll realize that there are 3 type of individuals: the racist, the non-racist, and those who are racist but they are in denial. I'm a racist in recovery!  But unacknowledged institutionalized racism is the worst of all.
> 
> 
> Iraq was definitely the climax, as LV4-26 says, before that people even sympathized with Clinton. Nobody forgets that the U.S.A. is a war country though, but if we disregard that, we were actually o.k. with it lately...



I just love Bubba. He saved his presidency and his marriage against all odds. If Hillary becomes president, they will team up to guide our country. Ah, I don't think we see ourselves as a warrior country but we are (in denial).


----------



## Swettenham

Cristóbal Colón said:
			
		

> Vuestras Altezas cuando mandaren puédenlos todos llevar a  Castilla o tenellos en la misma isla captivos, porque con cincuenta hombres los  terná todos sojuzgados y los hará hacer todo lo que quisiere. *source=*Cervantes Virtual.


Si vamos a "bash" América, lo hagamos no menos de profundamente.  Nuestros países se fundaron en la matanza,  la esclavitud, y el robo incomprensible— Inglaterra, España y Portugal cometieron un crimen que eclipsaba el holocausto.  ¿Aun tenemos derecho a existir, los que esta barbarie creó, y los que crearon esta barbarie?  No podemos sinceramente decir "no," sin suicidarnos inmediatamente.  

Entonces, ¿qué gente puede decir que la otra es culpable?  ¿Realmente creéis que vuestra gente es iluminada?  Es tan simple decirlo.

Nosotros— Americanos, Europeos, Árabes, Chinos— todos somos la humanidad civilizada, la que conquista, que subyuga, que sigue destruyendo nuestra planeta.  Pretendemos que seamos exentos de las leyes de la naturaleza, y en este error, no hay grados de culpabilidad.  Sólo hay la entropía que empezó hace diez miles años, y dentro de tan poco tiempo, hoy nos encontramos una especie al borde de extinción.

Si no podemos superar nuestras diferencias y luchar por un interés común, ¿quién entre nosotros marecerán la compasión?  Tal vez hoy y ahorita los Estados Unidos y los terroristas son los que más perpetúan la destrucción, pero la destrucción se inicia no en un país sino el corazón humano, el mío y el tuyo.  Si no nos damos cuenta de ello, estamos todos perdidos.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Swettenham said:
			
		

> Si vamos a "bash" América, lo hagamos no menos de profundamente. Nuestros países se fundaron en la matanza, la esclavitud, y el robo incomprensible— Inglaterra, España y Portugal cometieron un crimen que eclipsaba el holocausto. ¿Aun tenemos derecho a existir, los que esta barbarie creó, y los que crearon esta barbarie? No podemos sinceramente decir "no," sin suicidarnos inmediatamente.


No sé si entiendo muy bien qué quieres decir con esto... pero si estás llamando bárbaros a los ingleses, españoles y portugueses (que no cabe duda que está bien dicho)... qué podemos decir entonces de los americanos en relación a lo que le hicieron a los indios (native Americans)?


----------



## Swettenham

¿Qué podemos decir entonces de los estadounidenses?  Yo amo a mi gente, pero ella me da miedo.  No me gustan las bombas atómicas, que pueden destruir todo, tan fácilmente.  No me gustan los terroristas, que nos desafian a que usemos toda nuestra fuerza— ¿y por qué?  No comprendo qué vale tal deseo de muerte que existe en tantos corazones.  Mi gente, no somos malo, pero somos humanos; además somos muy poderosos, así que un error nuestro puede ser muy peligroso.  Pero el problema no es en el mente estadounidense, ni ningún en especial, sino el mente civilizado.  Admiro los indios más que nosotros, aunque no puedo vivir como ellos.  Aunque siempre había la guerra y la tristeza, al menos la humanidad podía vivir por muchos miles de años sin holocaustos ni global warming.  Los Estodas Unidos ejemplifican la destrucción implícita en la industria y el comportamiento imperial, los terroristas la destrucción implícita en el abuso de religión y el asesinato.  Pero es así sólo por causas cronológicas, porque estos temas por fin tenían que alcanzar su conclusión lógica.

Por mi parte, me llamo Americano y nada más pues los Estados Unidos son en mi opinión un buen país, en tanto que cualquier país puede ser bueno.  Pero me canso de las divisiones y el orgullo que hacen a todos lucharse.  Sólo me interesan, por mi breve tiempo en la tierra, buenas personas y buenas actividades, tal como aprender mi lengua favorita.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Outsider*All politicians are charismatic. It's part of their job.


It might be a part of their "job," but I don't believe they are all charismatic. Al Bore Gore was a stiff, Bob Dull Dole was equally as blah. Vice President Dick Cheney, who is arguably one of the most brilliant political minds in Washington (although I don't agree with his politics), is a lump. 

What to say about Bush? How can someone who can barely put together an intelligible sentence without awkward phrasing and malapropisms be called charismatic.


----------



## Everness

Swettenham said:
			
		

> Si no podemos superar nuestras diferencias y luchar por un interés común, ¿quién entre nosotros marecerán la compasión?  Tal vez hoy y ahorita los Estados Unidos y los terroristas son los que más perpetúan la destrucción, pero la destrucción se inicia no en un país sino el corazón humano, el mío y el tuyo.  Si no nos damos cuenta de ello, estamos todos perdidos.



Reasonable but utopian perspective in a world that worships and organizes itself around nationalism. The UN was created to keep in check our nationalistic impulses. Nationalism is individualism applied to countries. And we all know that deep down we are egotistic monsters who think that the universe has been created to serve us. When you extrapolate this to the international arena, you understand why our world is so f*cked up. 

What I find completely obscene is the rationale that the US gave to invade Iraq. Yes, I'm aware that many reasons were given. I'm talking about the latest spin: the spread of democracy bullshit. We couldn't care less about Iraqis and their well-being. We invaded Iraq to ensure long-term military presence in Asia. In other words, we only cared about our own safety.


----------



## LV4-26

This is about one of the other reasons
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/


----------



## Swettenham

Everness said:
			
		

> Reasonable but utopian perspective in a world that worships and organizes itself around nationalism. The UN was created to keep in check our nationalistic impulses. Nationalism is individualism applied to countries. And we all know that deep down we are egotistic monsters who think that the universe has been created to serve us. When you extrapolate this to the international arena, you understand why our world is so f*cked up.


You assume that the world began when humans became individualistic and divided themselves into nations.  That started about 10,000 years ago.  What was going on before that?  Tribal living.  It wasn't peace, it wasn't life without struggle, it wasn't the Garden of Eden— but it sure wasn't WWII or Iraq either.



> What I find completely obscene is the rationale that the US gave to invade Iraq. Yes, I'm aware that many reasons were given. I'm talking about the latest spin: the spread of democracy bullshit. We couldn't care less about Iraqis and their well-being. We invaded Iraq to ensure long-term military presence in Asia. In other words, we only cared about our own safety.


A funny story about American military wisdom:  

As we all know, the war in Vietnam began when Ho Chi Minh led a revolt against the French in the 50s.  In their fight to retain power, the French won every major battle but one— the epic and decisive seige of Dien Bien Phu— and yet, when it was all over, it had become apparent that individual successes on the battlefield had meant absolutely nada.  Following their embarassment, the French "high command actually compiled a three-volume study of lessons learned from their defeat in Indochina." (*Source*: Why the North Won the Vietnam War, Ed. by Marc Jason Gilbert).  As the United States geared up to march into Vietnam, they "went out of their way to pay no attention" to this report of lessons learned, and proceeded to repeat all of the French army's mistakes.

Incidentally, doesn't Bush boast that he does not read the newspaper?

When are we ever going to learn?  A history teacher I once had called it American expectionalism: of course it doesn't make any sense, and it didn't work for anybody else, but we're America, so why shouldn't it work for us?


----------



## Nath0811

pollyb said:
			
		

> I am confused and upset by the apparent dislike of Americans from most of the Europeans communicating on this forum. I have always heard of the French attitude towards Americans as none too friendly but have only heard good things from fellow Americans who have visited that country, but on this forum the hostility is very obvious. In particular there is a sign off from Silviap reading "And I long for the day when the Russian will say to the American people _and you were laughing at us?_ I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at there.?
> We are generally a really nice people, ofcourse like all countries we do have our share of a.h.'s and jerks. but aren't they everywhere?
> comments please from others about feelings towards Americans?
> thank you
> Pollyb


 
I'm going back to the original after reading the whole thread (some very interesting comments...).

I'm French, and I live in the USA. Before I came here, I wasn't aware of what you call the American Bashing. I liked Americans, had an image of them being cool, nice, easy-going... and I loved English!!

However, I must tell you, to this day I am astounded by the amount of Americans that are so openly anti-French! I attend a lot of "high-end" events through my work (around the US)- and since I'm a nice person people open up easily to me. Sometimes I wish they didn't, out of respect!! Boy, how many times have I heard "I have no interest to go to France - no offense to you but your country does nothing for me" "I went to France and the people were actually nice to me!" (looking all surprised), "Why do the French hate Americans so much?" and even - "I used to drink a lot of French wine, but now I only buy Californian or Italian"

Now, can you imagine how insulting this is? Every time, since we're in a work environment, I smile and explain to them that this isn't true, no, French don't hate Americans like that, and no, not everybody is rude in France, especially if you are nice to them.

Someone mentioned also that Americans tend to ignore the cultures of the countries they visit, and I did hear that - from my American friends here!! They complain about that! 

Let's just say that if some Americans started to feel that they _are_ nice, that they _are_ cool people, and that people in the world _do_ like them and listen to their music and watch their movies... AND if they start to show the same draw and interest to other countries, then everybody would love each other more.


----------



## Everness

Nath0811 said:
			
		

> However, I must tell you, to this day I am astounded by *the amount of Americans * that are so openly anti-French! I attend a lot of "high-end" events through my work (around the US)- and since I'm a nice person people open up easily to me. Sometimes I wish they didn't, out of respect!! Boy, how many times have I heard "I have no interest to go to France - no offense to you but your country does nothing for me" "I went to France and the people were actually nice to me!" (looking all surprised), "Why do the French hate Americans so much?" and even - "I used to drink a lot of French wine, but now I only buy Californian or Italian"
> 
> Now, can you imagine how insulting this is? Every time, since we're in a work environment, I smile and explain to them that this isn't true, no, *French * don't hate Americans like that, and no, *not everybody * is rude in France, especially if you are nice to them.
> 
> Someone mentioned also that *Americans * tend to ignore the cultures of the countries they visit, and I did hear that - from my American friends here!! They complain about that!
> 
> Let's just say that if *some Americans* started to feel that *they * _are_ nice, that *they * _are_ cool people, and that *people in the world * _do_ like them and listen to their music and watch their movies... AND if *they * start to show the same draw and interest to other countries, then *everybody * would love each other more.



I liked the tone of your post. I highlighted some words because I think that they are part of the problem, not your problem but our problem. 

Our take on anything and everything in life is the result of our personal experiencies and our intellectual and affective filters. That's how we make sense out of things. That's how we give meaning to life. This leads me to the next point: our need to generalize. I think that we choose this or that experience(s) filtered through this or that filter(s) in order to construct reality. We say to ourselves: "This is how things are. Period." I'm not saying that the need to generalize is right or wrong. I'm saying that we do it all the time.  

My point? Your assertions are true in absolute terms because it's your experience. However, it's impossible to categorize them as true or false if you take into account that yours is just one of the billion perspectives that exist. It's true that some of these perspectives can be grouped and you can find people who think and feel more or less like you. This happened in the US when the French government wisely decided not to support the Bush administration in carrying out its military crusade. For instance, we relabeled French fries and called them Freedom fries! Good luck trying to match that kind of stupidity! 

Back to my point and to your point. There's only one way of looking at life at the countries, people, and culture of France or America: ours. The only thing we should always keep in mind is that this is also applies to the rest of inhabitants of our precious planet Earth! We first need to respect this diversity of opinion and then do some soul searching to separate healthy values from sick and sickening prejudices. We'll then might learn to get along...


----------



## Outsider

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> What to say about Bush? How can someone who can barely put together an intelligible sentence without awkward phrasing and malapropisms be called charismatic.


I think part of the secret of G.W. Bush's success is that he makes average Americans feel that their president is imperfect, yet basically a nice guy, just like them.


----------



## Benjy

did anyone ever throw a pizza at you because were french? the truth is, we tend not to notice the idiots in our own country as we are not usually on the recieving end of their idiocy. i can assure you that i have gotten at least as much abuse for being an american as you have for being french, and i am not even from the states! 



			
				Nath0811 said:
			
		

> I'm going back to the original after reading the whole thread (some very interesting comments...).
> 
> I'm French, and I live in the USA. Before I came here, I wasn't aware of what you call the American Bashing. I liked Americans, had an image of them being cool, nice, easy-going... and I loved English!!
> 
> However, I must tell you, to this day I am astounded by the amount of Americans that are so openly anti-French! I attend a lot of "high-end" events through my work (around the US)- and since I'm a nice person people open up easily to me. Sometimes I wish they didn't, out of respect!! Boy, how many times have I heard "I have no interest to go to France - no offense to you but your country does nothing for me" "I went to France and the people were actually nice to me!" (looking all surprised), "Why do the French hate Americans so much?" and even - "I used to drink a lot of French wine, but now I only buy Californian or Italian"
> 
> Now, can you imagine how insulting this is? Every time, since we're in a work environment, I smile and explain to them that this isn't true, no, French don't hate Americans like that, and no, not everybody is rude in France, especially if you are nice to them.
> 
> Someone mentioned also that Americans tend to ignore the cultures of the countries they visit, and I did hear that - from my American friends here!! They complain about that!
> 
> Let's just say that if some Americans started to feel that they _are_ nice, that they _are_ cool people, and that people in the world _do_ like them and listen to their music and watch their movies... AND if they start to show the same draw and interest to other countries, then everybody would love each other more.


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> I think part of the secret of G.W. Bush's success is that he makes average Americans feel that their president is imperfect, yet basically a nice guy, just like them.



I think you are giving him too much credit...


----------



## Outsider

Possibly, considering that less than half the country went to vote.


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> Possibly, considering that less than half the country went to vote.



Someone's loss (electorate's apathy in casting votes) is someone's gain (a biased political system remains in place).


----------



## asm

Ironically, Bush was the person who profited the most with the 9-11 attacks. Bin Laden helped him to be reelected. 

Now Katrina is perhaps a “second hand” to help some politicians. Will the political composition be different in the area? Will the elephant lash the donkey?


http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050911141809990007




			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Someone's loss (electorate's apathy in casting votes) is someone's gain (a biased political system remains in place).


----------



## Nath0811

Benjy said:
			
		

> did anyone ever throw a pizza at you because were french? the truth is, we tend not to notice the idiots in our own country as we are not usually on the recieving end of their idiocy. i can assure you that i have gotten at least as much abuse for being an american as you have for being french, and i am not even from the states!


 
It is idiotic really - And hopefully this thread will make every one of us more tolerant about the other, because, as you say, it's just not fun being on the receiving end. 

Governments should never be by the way the reason to dislike civilians from that country. There wouldn't be many nations left to like anyway!!


----------



## cuchuflete

Having spent lots of time living outside of my own country, I have only been badly treated once, and that was because someone thought I was Spanish!  



			
				benjy said:
			
		

> we tend not to notice the idiots in our own country as we are not usually on the recieving end of their idiocy.



However, I have been called nasty names by Americans when I was protesting the Vietnam War.


----------



## Nath0811

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> However, I have been called nasty names by Americans when I was protesting the Vietnam War.


 
Like you put it, you protested... No matter what the subject is, you always have people who will defend what you protest. It's a confrontational situation.
I don't think this is a proper example.


----------



## lsp

Nath0811 said:
			
		

> However, I must tell you, to this day I am astounded by the amount of Americans that are so openly anti-French! I attend a lot of "high-end" events through my work (around the US)- and since I'm a nice person people open up easily to me. Sometimes I wish they didn't, out of respect!! Boy, how many times have I heard "I have no interest to go to France - no offense to you but your country does nothing for me" "I went to France and the people were actually nice to me!" (looking all surprised), "Why do the French hate Americans so much?" and even - "I used to drink a lot of French wine, but now I only buy Californian or Italian"
> 
> Now, can you imagine how insulting this is? Every time, since we're in a work environment, I smile and explain to them that this isn't true, no, French don't hate Americans like that, and no, not everybody is rude in France, especially if you are nice to them.
> 
> Someone mentioned also that Americans tend to ignore the cultures of the countries they visit, and I did hear that - from my American friends here!! They complain about that!
> 
> Let's just say that if some Americans started to feel that they _are_ nice, that they _are_ cool people, and that people in the world _do_ like them and listen to their music and watch their movies... AND if they start to show the same draw and interest to other countries, then everybody would love each other more.


Chicken or egg? 

My first big overseas trip was to Paris. People told me to expect anti-American sentiment, and I thought that was the most ridiculous thing to say. Who would be mean to me?! I was putting my life's savings at that point toward my dream vacation in their city! I had nothing but youthful, eager enthusiasm. I dismissed the warnings. Unfortunately my experiences were terrible in my hotel and in several restaurants. All I managed was "jus d'orange, s'il vous plaît" and it was as if my accent (not so bad, I assure you) actually caused physical pain to my waitress's ears as she hissed something about Americans.

I polled my colleagues. They all had similar stories (and they all end the same way BTW - "It's not the French, it's the Parisians. It's so different if you go farther outside the city"). 

This is the flipside of your experience and I thought it should be told. I consider myself fortunate that I am still able to be troubled as much by a generalization about French intolerance as I am by one about arrogant Americans.


----------



## Benjy

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Having spent lots of time living outside of my own country, I have only been badly treated once, and that was because someone thought I was Spanish!
> 
> 
> 
> However, I have been called nasty names by Americans when I was protesting the Vietnam War.



which just goes to show that they are everywhere


----------



## Nath0811

lsp said:
			
		

> Chicken or egg?
> 
> My first big overseas trip was to Paris. People told me to expect anti-American sentiment, and I thought that was the most ridiculous thing to say. Who would be mean to me?! I was putting my life's savings at that point toward my dream vacation in their city! I had nothing but youthful, eager enthusiasm. I dismissed the warnings. Unfortunately my experiences were terrible in my hotel and in several restaurants. All I managed was "jus d'orange, s'il vous plaît" and it was as if my accent (not so bad, I assure you) actually caused physical pain to my waitress's ears as she hissed something about Americans.
> 
> I polled my colleagues. They all had similar stories (and they all end the same way BTW - "It's not the French, it's the Parisians. It's so different if you go farther outside the city").
> 
> This is the flipside of your experience and I thought it should be told. I consider myself fortunate that I am still able to be troubled as much by a generalization about French intolerance as I am by one about arrogant Americans.


 
Well - I figured that I would share this story _because_ the original question was about the world being anti-American, where I really feel here sometimes that the USA are very much anti-French. 

It is chicken and egg situation, and it's up to you and me to ignore the ignorants in our country who make others feel bad about their origin. I'm sorry you had a bad experience in France, and I hope that next time you visit, people will be nicer to you.

Remember too that often American tourists are being perceived as tourists who don't try to understand the other culture and adapt - and often times expect people to speak English. That might annoy some natives. This was told to me by American friends. One traveled to Italy with a group and she said it was so upsetting. 

I don't think this applies to people in this forum though. Multilingual = open to other cultures = generally appreciate and appreciated by foreigners.........


----------



## cuchuflete

Nath0811 said:
			
		

> Like you put it, you protested... No matter what the subject is, you always have people who will defend what you protest. It's a confrontational situation.
> I don't think this is a proper example.



It's not an example of American bashing by someone from another country.

It is an example of equally narrow-minded behaviour by one citizen of a country towards another.   I mentioned it only as an instance of uninformed behavior.  I was told "Go back to Russia!" which amused me at the time...late 1960s...as I had not been outside of the US in my entire life at that time,  except for a week's vacation in Canada. 

Half of the US population seemed to be bashing the other half for "un-American" behavior.  Now we have grown up, and the half in power bashes the other half for being unpatriotic, disloyal, and godless, for being elitist and effete, and for daring to question what the Solons in Washington, D.C. tell us is true.  And, of course, we bash back.


----------



## Nath0811

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Half of the US population seemed to be bashing the other half for "un-American" behavior. Now we have grown up, and the half in power bashes the other half for being unpatriotic, disloyal, and godless, for being elitist and effete, and for daring to question what the Solons in Washington, D.C. tell us is true. And, of course, we bash back.


 
LOL this made me smile... It's really human nature now, isn't it? if you're this, you bash about that, if you're that, you bash about the other, and so on. 
Silly silly.


----------



## xav

Dear modgirl

One thousand thanks for all these mûrement réfléchis comments. I find them interesting and helpful. Question : at the end of the 3d sentence in 3), did you mean "on them there" ?

As a matter of fact, my "dyst" questions were only about linguistics : do you say that ? Is that correct english ? about the terms or expressions just before.  



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> I reviewed your post, and you really didn't ask questions but rather made comments on why you feel Americans often wear a bad reputation.
> 
> 1) Jealousy -- the US guarding what she has, and the rest of the world is a bit resentful. Certainly, it's a possibility. I don't have strong feelings about whether this is true or not.
> 
> 2) Fear of US economic success invading your country. Actually, this may be true. I do know several French people who are very worried about what they called the new "work ethic" (or rather lack of one) of many people in their 20s and 30s. Personally, I think a healthy attitude about a career is best -- one that balances both work and play. There is no doubt that many workaholics exist in the US; unfortunately, I tend to be one myself. The problem is that the output of a workaholic is naturally going to be greater than those of others and that can cause resentment.
> 
> I believe under the same number, you mention a fear of the English language overtaking French. As I understand it, a French word exists for what we call *e-mail* in English; however, many French are exasperated because the new _mot fr_ançais never caught on. Instead, the English *e-mail* is used! And I do understand that, in general, the French are jealous of their language and do not wish it to be infiltrated with English. So, I'm not sure which is worse: not speaking French in France or speaking unpolished (and grammatically incorrect) French!
> 
> 3) You wrote "we have become pacifists after the 1st WW (at least the Frenchs), after the 2d one (Germans), and we cannot understand US haven't." You will also recall that in WWII, it took a mere 42 days for hitler to conquer France. I think that many feel the United States must simply take a more proactive stance to ensure that a similar situation will not happen on the here. Again, the French book I mentioned is an exposé on the control of the French government on its press about the war in Iraq. As I recall, no one could dispute the author's allegations, and no one backed them up. They were too afraid of losing their jobs.
> 
> Your last point 5) on admiration: I'm not quite certain what you're asking.


----------



## timpeac

Nath0811 said:
			
		

> LOL this made me smile... It's really human nature now, isn't it? if you're this, you bash about that, if you're that, you bash about the other, and so on.
> Silly silly.


 
Yes, self-bashing yourself makes you go blind to reality.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Nath0811* Remember too that often American tourists are being perceived as tourists who don't try to understand the other culture and adapt - and often times expect people to speak English. That might annoy some natives.


Natives are not the only ones they annoy. They annoy other Americans as well. I cannot recall the number of times while living in France when I would cringe of embarrassment because of the behavior of some of my compatriots. In one instance, I was taking a public trolley in Amsterdam some American woman commented - very loudly - about the amount of grafitti she happened to notice. That's all she could see in that beautiful country!!! I really wanted to turn to her and ask if she had ever been to New York, LA, Houston, hr local downtown or inner-city parts of <name your city here>. What's worse is the way many Americans treat waitstaff in foreign countries. It's horrid. 

It is no wonder Americans have the reputation that they do. Disdain for Americans, in many situations is justifiable. I'm appalled at the way some of these people behave here in the US!!! 

Another example. I got married two 1/2 years ago - around the onset of the Iraq war. During the height of the "Freedom Fries" movement, a friend of my mom's complained to her that she would not purchase a wedding gift from my registry because I had registered some items that were - GASP, SHOCK - made in France.  

Such narrow-mindedness - from anyone - American, French, Martian, whatever - never ceases to amaze me.

(Climbs off soap box now.)

For the record, I have never been mis-treated - EVER - when I went to France. On the contrary, people have always treated me beautifully. Are the waiters in Paris a bit snotty? Sure, but aren't they supposed to be?


----------



## depassage

In France, there is sometimes what I call "anti-américanisme primaire", that's true. But that doesn't mean that people will spit at your face or beat you up because you're american, you don't have to be afraid.   
Most of the time, the criticism is toward the government, the foreign policies, not the people.
But you know that the french bashing in the USA is a lot stronger.
In France, we don't have people like O’Reilly, John Gibson, Tucker Carlson, or Jonah Goldberg, we don't have websites like www.fuckfrance.com and those people who made it are not laughing, they have a very serious anti-french hate.
They try to represent us as cowards. They just forget how many french people died during the two world wars.
During the First WW, we had to endure the german invasion on our own territory four years long. The USA remain neutral till 1917 and therefore, their economy, their trade, was and became more and more powerfull while Europe and especially France was nothing but a battlefield. 
We lost 5% of our population (USA : 0.1 % )
After what happened, nobody in the world, including americans, didn't want to hear about war anymore. My grandfather was a prisoner in the WWII. 610000 french were killed during this war so that's why I can't stand to hear of French as cowards.


----------



## lsp

I agree about many things that have been said about Americans. I, too, have wanted to cringe and conceal my blue passport around some compatriots both in my overseas travels and even here at home. 

But I have to say one thing in defense of Americans who travel with regard to this notion that they expect people everywhere to speak English.

Why wouldn't they? Really when you think about it... we're talking about the average American, right? We don't have many foreign radio stations, or show original language movies except in the occasional arthouse theater. Our orientation towards learning other languages is different, and our school requirements are minimal. Our motivation to learn on our own isn't stimulated by any great need, either. The average American isn't going on vacation every year to foreign lands, and if they do it's a different land/different language each time, but still no regular exposure. We're not that exposed to other languages by virtue of our borders either. Most of us can travel 6 hours or 6 days and still be in English speaking USA. In Europe you'd have been in 3 or 4 countries and heard twice that many languages in the same travel time. And when we travel, a lot of people actually do speak English, so the impression is reinforced. Most Americans take it for granted that English is spoken all over the world because no clues lead them to draw any another conclusion, right or wrong.

I feel lucky to have had an experience in Italy so overwhelmingly warm that I wanted to learn the language so I could visit over and over again and feel more and more at home each time. I had the means and time to do it, and some luck - the language, even as an adult, came fairly easily to me. Now the understanding of another language and therefore another culture, even though I worked for it, seems like one of the greatest gifts. But no one else in my family speaks another language - in this case I'm the exception not the rule.


----------



## Benjy

depassage, the opening statement in your post made me laugh. just because at the same time as someone screaming bush at me i have been spat on, had pizza thrown at me and some glass bottles, and stones too at various times. all whilst living in france.

anyhows, la verit'e? ya des cons partout, tant en france qu'aux etats-unis.


----------



## xav

lsp said:
			
		

> I agree about many things that have been said about Americans. I, too, have wanted to cringe and conceal my blue passport around some compatriots both in my overseas travels and even here at home.
> 
> But I have to say one thing in defense of Americans who travel with regard to this notion that they expect people everywhere to speak English.
> 
> Why wouldn't they? Really when you think about it... we're talking about the average American, right? We don't have many foreign radio stations, or show original language movies except in the occasional arthouse theater. Our orientation towards learning other languages is different, and our school requirements are minimal. Our motivation to learn on our own isn't stimulated by any great need, either. The average American isn't going on vacation every year to foreign lands, and if they do it's a different land/different language each time, but still no regular exposure. We're not that exposed to other languages by virtue of our borders either. Most of us can travel 6 hours or 6 days and still be in English speaking USA. In Europe you'd have been in 3 or 4 countries and heard twice that many languages in the same travel time. And when we travel, a lot of people actually do speak English, so the impression is reinforced. Most Americans take it for granted that English is spoken all over the world because no clues lead them to draw any another conclusion, right or wrong.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I completely agree with that. But let's take an American visiting Russia, a still bigger country. The Russians he visits have never watched foreign TV nor heard any foreign language : it's not Moscow, but Kuybichev. Who has to make efforts to be understood ? The visitor or the visited one ? The less rich, maybe ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lsp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when we travel, a lot of people actually do speak English, so the impression is reinforced. QUOTE]
> Right too. Should we help American travellers to understand there are other civilisations by _not answering_ them in English ?
Click to expand...


----------



## modgirl

xav said:
			
		

> Should we help American travellers to understand there are other civilisations by not answering them in english ?


 
Yes, please!!! Undoubtedly, my French is not great. But whenever I visit Paris, I always speak French. However, probably 80% of the time, I am answered in English.

Why? Is the sound of my French so awful that they can't bear to hear it?

Or, are they trying to be polite and answer in my native tongue?


I'll be the first to admit that I become furious when I hear an American accent immediately speak in English with the assumption that the other person will understand. I speak no German. If I visited Germany and needed to ask a question, the first thing I'd do, with the help of a small phrasebook, is ask, *in German*, "Excuse me, please. By chance, do you speak English?"

It's no crime not to speak the language of a country one is visiting.  It is a crime, in my humble opinion, to assume that others will automatically speak English.  One should always, ALWAYS ask.


----------



## xav

Wow ! Thank you, Modgirl ! That's exactly which I think and do.
But not everybody does.
Au fond, it probably is a simple matter of egotism. Self-centered people don't care so much about hurting the other ones, except of course the usual rules of politeness - and what you say doesn't belong to.


----------



## xav

modgirl said:
			
		

> Yes, please!!! Undoubtedly, my French is not great. But whenever I visit Paris, I always speak French. However, probably 80% of the time, I am answered in English.
> 
> Why? Is the sound of my French so awful that they can't bear to hear it?
> 
> Or, are they trying to be polite and answer in my native tongue?


I'd say they are trying to be as helpful as they can. 
I assumed that many of them were professional "hôtesses" and that you would have a much different result in the streets, especially in "province" towns.

But my question was about the rude English-speakers, not about people trying to speak French...
and I've the impression your answer remains "yes" !


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Modgirl*
> It is a crime, in my humble opinion, to assume that others will automatically speak English.


You are 100% right about this! Americans, especially, have a particularly bad habit of "assuming" people from other countries know and speak English. They hear how English is taught in these schools and assume that "English" is the language of the world. It is a grievous assumption and one that can sully their experiences abroad.  It's because of this that people come back with experiences such as "They were so rude." "I can't believe xxxx people act that way." I always ask these people what they did to contribute. 



> Originally posted by *Modgirl*It's no crime not to speak the language of a country one is visiting.


It might not be a crime, but having a rudimentary understanding of another language - and attempting to speak it with natives - can go a long way to "bridge the gap," as it were. I am almost as irritated by those who only learn "Mare-see" thinking they've gone out of their way to learn that "language," as I am people who don't bother learning at all. 

I understand the many Americans continue to have a very "isolationist" view of the world and that foreign language is not emphasized (enough?) as a part of the American education simply because someone decided it's not necessary. Having even a few token phrases under your belt can greatly enhance any travel experience and open doors that would have otherwise remained closed. It should go beyond just "hello," "good evening," and "thank you," however.


----------



## Kelly B

No! Wait! Anybody can understand English if you just speak it s l o w l y and LOUDLY enough!

Right?

LSP's comment, that it is hard to see otherwise  in our culture, was a good one.


----------



## GenJen54

> No! Wait! Anybody can understand English if you just speak it s l o w l y and LOUDLY enough!


*EX-KEW-ZAY MWAH. CAN YEW TELL ME WHERE IS EL MU-SAY-O DEL AR-TAY DEE VEN-EE-SEE-OH.*


----------



## dominoz

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> I have to say that in general Europeans do not sympathize with Americans. Of course, there are Europeans who dream of going to America but *in general in Europe we see Americans as a nation who are self-centered and do not have an own culture. *




As a European, I\'d just like to say that the sweeping generalization above is not true.

However, I do have a friend who had a bad experience at customs in Orlando, Florida who subsequently (and suddenly) developed a very strong case of *Americanbash*itis.


----------



## xav

Kelly B said:
			
		

> No! Wait! Anybody can understand English if you just speak it s l o w l y and LOUDLY enough!
> 
> Right?


 
Sorry - definetely no.


----------



## Benjy

xav said:
			
		

> Sorry - definetely no.



c'était de l'humour  les francais.. je te dis pas


----------



## LV4-26

Benjy said:
			
		

> c'était de l'humour  les francais.. je te dis pas


Tu as raison, il n'y a que leur propre  humour qui les fasse rire


----------



## ayed

Hi, all of you, WR members.
Are these forums for discussing such trivials here and there?or for "We-better-than-you debates"?
Just remind you that you are all human beings not angels .
I denounce such dialogues as this.Self-control is required.
I think these forums are not a place where one could crash his egges or call spade a spade.Just remember these forums are educational and cultural invironment.
anyone who wishes to discuss such an issue, he could go to a specialised forums in politics, please.
Let us keep WR forums civic.
My regards
Ayed


----------



## xav

Sorry, Ayed, but I think we have learned very interesting things in this thread.


----------



## anangelaway

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Tu as raison, il n'y a que leur propre humour qui les fasse rire


 
Ha LV4!!!   After just about 8 years working in London, it took me about 3 or 4 to get it (forgive me), but the British sence of humour will always cracks me up!!! I had to confess it! Haven't we laughed at Benny Hill every Sunday nights, years ago...? Keep the good fun _les anglais_!!!


----------



## anangelaway

*Why Help Never Arrived?*


----------



## Vanda

anangelaway said:
			
		

> *Why Help Never Arrived?*


 
Sem comentários.
No comment!  lol


----------



## me82

pollyb said:
			
		

> I am confused and upset by the apparent dislike of Americans from most of the Europeans communicating on this forum. I have always heard of the French attitude towards Americans as none too friendly but have only heard good things from fellow Americans who have visited that country, but on this forum the hostility is very obvious. In particular there is a sign off from Silviap reading "And I long for the day when the Russian will say to the American people _and you were laughing at us?_ I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at there.?
> We are generally a really nice people, ofcourse like all countries we do have our share of a.h.'s and jerks. but aren't they everywhere?
> comments please from others about feelings towards Americans?
> thank you
> Pollyb


 
Hello Pollyb  

i am French and i looooooove your beautiful country...

i read many times online that Americans feel like French people dislike them, are forgetful or Anti-Americans... and you know what? it upsets me a LOT to hear that. i will be honest with you... yes, there are people who criticize your country... but i wouldn't take it personally... i think many of these persons are a little jealous or something like that... but please don't forget that the majority of us are loving this country and still dream about going there... we really really really love you and i mean it with my heart.

What happens is that we have American movies, music, fastfood and other things in France... so some people may be jealous you have so much success in foreign countries and not France!? Not sure if i'm right, but i take it that way.

Also, there are persons who will criticize your president but that doesn't mean they dislike the rest of the USA!!! OK?? We criticize our OWN president so don't you worry...  

Unfortunately, there is a bunch of people who might dislike you because you're foreign, but that is for all foreign countries, not just yours. And that is not the majority (thank God)

i don't feel much liked by some Americans myself (not all of them) so i understand your feeling... it started with the war in Iraq that i felt disliked... and i hope that when i go to the States, i'll be welcome as much as i would welcome YOU here. i hope to never have troubles because i'm French. Because i think i love the USA as much as France.

ok i hope you understand my words and that you feel a little more loved now...

peace to you


----------



## Beautiful Princess

pollyb said:
			
		

> I am confused and upset by the apparent dislike of Americans from most of the Europeans communicating on this forum. I have always heard of the French attitude towards Americans as none too friendly but have only heard good things from fellow Americans who have visited that country, but on this forum the hostility is very obvious. In particular there is a sign off from Silviap reading "And I long for the day when the Russian will say to the American people _and you were laughing at us?_ I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at there.?
> We are generally a really nice people, ofcourse like all countries we do have our share of a.h.'s and jerks. but aren't they everywhere?
> comments please from others about feelings towards Americans?
> thank you
> Pollyb


 
I see a cultural diversity here... a clash, a difference of cultures, that is... and that is the main reason we sort of collide or have disagreements... we see ourselves in our point of view only... not in the point of view of the other party... if we will look at this in a different angle.. in an aerial view for instance, seeing both sides as well as the top view of the situation, we'll come to understand the situation... we are all wired up to be sensitive and I guess, we need that... we are also rational in knowing all people has flaws regarding of cultures, right? It matters a lot if we know we've hurt other people's feelings.  What matters is the goal we pursue that should be kept in focus... whatever our culture... our governments are like, we can accept each other without completely agreeing to each other... we are products of different folks, different surroundings, cultures and yes, governments... but that shouldn't stop us from being united in thoughts to help each other, correct?

Once and for all, we need to pursue common goal and live at peace with each other... God Bless..


----------



## piloya

pollyb said:
			
		

> I am confused and upset by the apparent dislike of Americans from most of the Europeans communicating on this forum. I have always heard of the French attitude towards Americans as none too friendly but have only heard good things from fellow Americans who have visited that country, but on this forum the hostility is very obvious. In particular there is a sign off from Silviap reading "And I long for the day when the Russian will say to the American people _and you were laughing at us?_ I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at there.?
> We are generally a really nice people, ofcourse like all countries we do have our share of a.h.'s and jerks. but aren't they everywhere?
> comments please from others about feelings towards Americans?
> thank you
> Pollyb


Well, my experience is that I visited your country for this first time this year and what a nice surprise to find out that Americans are so nice, friendly people!! I really thought they weren't, don't ask me why, but I just think now that they are way nicer than us Spaniards. By the way, I went to South Dakota, maybe it helps.


----------



## asm

I've been in the states for the last 4 years; I have to say that Americans in Kentucky are nice people, not only in S. Dakota.

I never agreed (and I will never will) with a lot of political and other philosophical ideas, but that’s another story. People here are nice and open. I live in a small city in south central KY.

 






			
				piloya said:
			
		

> Well, my experience is that I visited your country for this first time this year and what a nice surprise to find out that Americans are so nice, friendly people!! I really thought they weren't, don't ask me why, but I just think now that they are way nicer than us Spaniards. By the way, I went to South Dakota, maybe it helps.


----------



## JazzByChas

I must say, Olivier, that in the end, you (and others) are right...all people may not agree politically, but you can't judge a country by its politics. I will admit to being politically conservative, but I don't always agree with everything the current regime practices. Leaders are human, after all.

More importantly, I _do_ think that people should get to know _people_, and not judge people by the country they live in. There is much more that can be learned by interpersonal exchange (which is why I like this forum...we from all over the world can exchange words and culture). The old Native-American saying sums it up: "Do not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins..."




			
				OlivierG said:
			
		

> I agree with this quote, ishatar.
> When somebody points out a bad side of yourself, it's much easier to consider it is due to an irrational hate and think about yourself as a victim than trying to understand his point of view.
> 
> I'm afraid it is a psychological issue, valid for both sides of the ocean. The only way to get rid of this is probably to know better each other, and to see behind what is said by the media.
> 
> I have been amazed by the French anti-americanism as it has been described in the American media, but, shame on me, I also believed in what I read in papers about French bashing in the US ("freedom fries", etc). I was probably wrong too, even if I unfortunately received an e-mail message starting by "Dear cheese-eating surrender monkey". But I consider myself as smart enough not to generalize this to the feeling of a whole country.


----------



## JazzByChas

I should also reply that, as has been mentioned elsewhere in the WF forums, Americans should be _required_ to learn at least one other language, which is currently not the case.  At least IMHO.  We as Americans have always been rather lazy at this notion, while just about every other country in the world thinks differently.


----------



## lsp

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> I should also reply that, as has been mentioned elsewhere in the WF forums, Americans should be _required_ to learn at least one other language, which is currently not the case. At least IMHO. We as Americans have always been rather lazy at this notion, while just about every other country in the world thinks differently.


I can't help but continue to defend us against the notion that it is simply laziness and nothing else. But I've already made my case on the subject.


----------



## Ratona

I don't think anybody should be _required_ to learn a language, but I do believe that the effort should be made in both the US and Britain to encourage the learning of foreign languages.

Learning languages is so enjoyable and mind-opening that it would be a shame to destroy such an experience by imposing them on people.


----------



## Benjy

Ratona said:
			
		

> I don't think anybody should be _required_ to learn a language, but I do believe that the effort should be made in both the US and Britain to encourage the learning of foreign languages.
> 
> Learning languages is so enjoyable and mind-opening that it would be a shame to destroy such an experience by imposing them on people.



yes but i also think that we should disabuse ourselves of the idea that everybody outside of england/the us speaks a second language. because they dont.


----------



## timpeac

Benjy said:
			
		

> yes but i also think that we should disabuse ourselves of the idea that everybody outside of england/the us speaks a second language. because they dont.


 
I agree - and even more so a language _which is not English_ - after all English is the present day lingua franca, Spanish speakers and German speakers may well speak together in English. We don't have the same impetus to learn a foreign language for "knowing a foreign language"'s sake if we already speak English.


----------



## JazzByChas

I would agree with Benjy [EDIT and timpeac as well]…there are proportionately very few native english speakers who speak more than one language, while schools in almost all parts of Europe require their children to learn at least one second language. I don’t think it would be destructive of the learning experience, especially if you start at a young enough age to where it becomes second nature after a while…the children would think that is is just another required subject in school, like Reading, Writing and Arithmetic or Maths, as you Brits like to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Ratona*
_I don't think anybody should be required to learn a language, but I do believe that the effort should be made in both the US and Britain to encourage the learning of foreign languages._

_Learning languages is so enjoyable and mind-opening that it would be a shame to destroy such an experience by imposing them on people._





			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> yes but i also think that we should disabuse ourselves of the idea that everybody outside of england/the us speaks a second language. because they dont.


----------



## xav

Just found - and just for fun :

Although France likes to think of itself as a modern nation, air-conditioning is little used and it is next to impossible to get decent Mexican food. One continuing exasperation for American visitors is that the people willfully persist in speaking French, though many will speak will shout English if shouted at. As in any foreign country, watch your change at all times. 
 
extrait d'un fort amusant recueil de conseils aux voyageurs américains envisageant de se rendre en France, judicieusement appelé "Vive la France". Further information on request.


----------



## piloya

> Although France likes to think of itself as a modern nation, air-conditioning is little used and it is next to impossible to get decent Mexican food. One continuing exasperation for American visitors is that the people willfully persist in speaking French, though many will speak will shout English if shouted at. As in any foreign country, watch your change at all times.


Bonjour Xav / Good morning all,
Unbelievable!

I didn't know air conditioning was a sign of modernity (I became modern only a few years ago).  as well as Mexican food. Wow, I thought Ferran Adria, the famous chef, was modern, but he should better do some Mexican food instead.  
"as in any foreign country......." it hurts my ears... 
Good extrait, it was fun.


----------



## irka_hcmc

I think the problem between USA and Europe is because of its past. Here in vietnam i use to go in the tourist area to talk with foreigners, share ideas, with australians, americans and europeans. Most of the americans have this sour taste of the french down there throat. For example, i went to a guy in a bar, and i asked for a beer, so i started to talk with the guy how are you doing, whatssup so on so forth, he asked me where i came from. When i said i was french at first the man was doubtful, i knew he was from america, i got the eye sight but he persisted and said he was from australia. OK at this time may be i was wrong and he was really australian, but in fact. at the end when we had a lota beers, he told me he was american and why he didnt told me from the beginning.

First of all, he didnt say he was american because he was afraid of my reaction and may be he thought i wouldnt talk with him or mock at him.
Second even at the end he didnt trust me. I dont say american doesnt trust other people so it engages conflict but... It could be more easier when everybody is natural.
When we argued him and i, he said the american saved the france in the world war 2. Usually when somebody starts that kind of conversation its endless and finish by a bar-fight. I told him, ok man stop dont say that. The best way to create ennemies in that current period of the history, is to claim the usa saved all the people of the world. It attracts anger, hatred and all!!! nobody on earth can say that, i cant say the french saved the vietnamese thats totally wrong !!!!!!! YOu american people use to think that, you were the guardian keeper of freedom and you sent many soldiers in many countries i dont even want to notice in this thread, but dont be so cynical alright ? USA is a trouble-maker. Your government is for sure and i say it a piece of crap gov. But the people, the american people. I dont care at all what they are, what they do and i am not an anti american at all, just it tease my mind when i hear all those anti french things. But i hate bush, i really wish him a very painful death, i hope his karma will blow his brain off the last second of his life. Just talking about it attract anger for most of the french, thats true. But i dont say its because your fault or/and ours. It is because of the past, and human being got a serious problem forgetting it. Anyway i see a peaceful future between our 2 nations, i hope after bush or later on somebody will really take care of the USA. I know it will be peaceful because it has to. Anyway for myself the world war 2 is like jesus. Hope you guys are the same. 9-11 although is like jesus in my head, far far away. Thats the only way to grow up


----------



## LV4-26

xav said:
			
		

> One continuing exasperation for American visitors is that the people willfully persist in speaking French, though many will speak will shout English if shouted at. As in any foreign country, watch your change at all times.


I'd like to humbly confess the following 
It so happened once or twice that an American tourist came up and addressed me in English. I mean right away, not even caring to start by "do you speak English?". As if he couldn'd occur to him that I might not speak English. I have to confess I answered in French and pretended not to speak English (at least for the first minute).

Conversely, it also happened once or twice that they made an effort to try and speak French or just kindly gave me to understand that they couldn't. Then, of course, I was delighted to help.

The problem I always had (when I worked in the touristic field) was that I only met a specific type of American people : 70+-year-old tourists travelling on a cruise. More often than not, they seemed to make you feel you're hopeless, good for nothing, retarded and living in the Middle Ages. Also I had some communications problems sometimes : there was a monument alongside the road and I was explaining how old it was and the comment was "and how much does that land yield by the acre?". (I must admit I didn't have the answer to that - well, maybe they were right, after all. Maybe I was really living in the Middle Ages )


----------



## BasedowLives

> "do you speak English?". As if it hadn't occured to him that I might not speak English.



maybe thats why he asked if you spoke english...?

I don't know if this is the same thing, but, I don't speak french worth anything, yet if someone came up to me and asked est-ce que vous parlez français/parlez-vous français i'd just say no.


----------



## GenJen54

irka_hcmc said:
			
		

> YOu american people use to think that, you were the guardian keeper of freedom and you sent many soldiers in many countries i dont even want to notice in this thread, but dont be so cynical alright ? USA is a trouble-maker. Your government is for sure and i say it a piece of crap gov. But the people, the american people. I dont care at all what they are, what they do and i am not an anti american at all, just it tease my mind when i hear all those anti french things. But i hate bush, i really wish him a very painful death, i hope his karma will blow his brain off the last second of his life. Just talking about it attract anger for most of the french, thats true.



You seem to enjoy making generalities about a people you obviously know little about.  While there are many people of certain generations that still cling to the notion that "France owes us one" because we "saved" them during WWII, there are many others in subsequent generations who  have a broader understanding of the world, and as such do not have the same feelings. 



> Anyway for myself the world war 2 is like jesus. Hope you guys are the same. 9-11 although is like jesus in my head, far far away. Thats the only way to grow up



Not sure of your point here.  It's irrelevant, chatty and does not belong on the thread.


----------



## cuchuflete

American children are taught, at a very young age, that the idealism, the material and military support of some French people were of critical importance in winning our independence during the Revolutionary War. In other words, France was our first and most important ally, sharing both ideals and efforts. 

After that, many of them grow up to be ignorant of or uncaring about history, putting such matters in the same category as "world war 2 is like jesus". So I suppose some Americans and some French people do still have at least a little in common.


PS- Xav, many thanks


----------



## fenixpollo

And American schoolchildren are also taught that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France.  There are positive messages about France in the U.S., and there are many Americans who are francophiles and vast numbers of us who are not anti-France. 





			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		

> maybe thats why he asked if you spoke english...?.


 Read it again, BL -- the guy didn't even ask LV-426 if he spoke English. Then, J-M did what American *all* tourists secretly suspect: that all French people actually speak English, but they just "play dumb" to be inscrutable.


----------



## cuchuflete

The quote Xav gave us is obviously from a satirical piece...
though I suppose a few folks missed that, and took it seriously.
Comedy begets comedy?

Here are a few more lines from the same source:



> American travellers are advised to travel in groups and to wear baseball caps and colourful trousers for easier mutual recognition.





> In general, France is a safe destination, though travellers are advised that, from time to time, it is invaded by Germany.





> France has a population of 54 million people, most of whom drink and smoke a great deal, drive like lunatics, are dangerously oversexed, and have no concept of standing patiently in line.


source


----------



## stargazer

Hello, everyone

This is probably irrelevant to the topic, but let's do it anyway. It is hard not to have an opinion about Americans because they are so present all over the world - mainly through their popular culture, i.e. films and tv series. I found myself more than once being annoyed by how Europeans (regardless of nation) were being portrayed particularly in those: they were usually some bizarre, freaky, or stupid characters, more often than not totally stereotyped and always in some way inferior to Americans. It was always quite obvious that whoever wrote the script had no deep knowledge of geographical, linguistic, or cultural facts of a particular European country, or sometimes I got the feeling that "to them" France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, or Slovenia (etc.) are all the same. Well, that's my resentment.
BUT I've never considered the whole nation to be ignorant etc just because the writers and everyone else engaged in the production of tv series couldn't be bothered to check some facts and expand their knowledge. 
Moreover, I was pleasantly surprised when I became a member of the WR Forum and realized that SO MANY Americans learn foreign languages, know a lot about world history and art, and are by no means ignorant.
Maybe you'll find it funny but I consider this forum a kind of Utopia, a place where people are friendly to each other regardless of race/nation/etc. That's why I think everyone should treat everyone else politely and forget the stereoypes.


----------



## cuchuflete

I like your positive approach Stargazer. However, most national stereotypes do have some basis in fact.  Jean-Michel writes of elderly American tourists who are more concerned with crop yields than with history.  Of course these people exist, and in great numbers.  And some of them are Americans.

Because they are so visible, along with the rot of popular "culture" expressed in films and TV programs, it is logical and easy for others to decide that they represent what is 'normal' or average and ordinary in the U.S.  And to some degree they are.

Now, just imagine that a group of WR foreros from some country went traveling in the U.S., for example in my region.
The local lobstermen and shopkeepers would draw the conclusion that 'people from that country' are all really strange, asking questions about language all the time, talking about art and politics and etymology...they are really freaky and weird and strange.  

I suspect the TV writers are not ignorant at all, rather they are good at their craft.  It is better for them to reduce all foreigners to simple (inaccurate) stereotypes, so the audience can immediately recognize them, without the need to think.


----------



## Redisca

I would like to add that the problem with stereotypes is not that they exist per se, but that they, being gross generalizations, are invariably charged against individuals -- which is extremely unfair.  We all deserve to be judged on the basis of our individual qualities and deeds, unhandicapped by others' prejudices and a priori opinions.  It is probably an idealistic view, but that's what I believe.

Like virtually all people, I disagree with certain aspects of the American policy, both foreign and domestic, but in _this_ discussion, the particulars are irrelevant.  The US is a powerful and influential country, and that's the reason it is condemned.  It can change its policies, it can try to right the wrongs, it can try to appease and please people outside its borders, but in doing so, it will enrage others.  On virtually every issue, it is damned if it does, and damned if it does not -- simply because of its position in the world.  So long as the US remains one of the world's most powerful players (and right now, probably _the_ most powerful player), it will be subject to a heightened degree of criticism and a different standard as to its conduct.  When the next world leader comes along, _it_ will become the object of this love-hate relationship, and the attitudes towards the US will become significantly more benign -- but not until then.  Anti-americanism (for lack of a better term) will wax and wane, but it will continue to thrive for as long as the US thrives.  This is the price we pay for being on top.  France paid it.  Great Britain paid it.  It is nothing new.

That said, a couple of thoughts inspired by this thread:

1.  Neither Europe, nor America, nor any other region or country can claim to have _invented culture_.  To say that this or that country "has no culture" is incredibly racist and demeaning (to say nothing of ignorant).  Offering it as "just an opinion" does not redeem it -- if "just an opinion", it is one that happens to be racist, demeaning, and ignorant.  

The statement that such-and-such country does not have _its own_ culture is not much better.  What makes cultures thrive is exchange, not preservationism -- that's why cultures believed to be the most remarkable are composits, not entirely homegrown phenomena.  Even the culture of Ancient Greece -- the cradle of Western civilization -- evolved under significant Phoenician and other Near-Eastern influences.  Were we to parce between what is supposedly "one's own" and what is "borrowed", no culture would survive.  Keep our potatoes and our corn, I say, but don't deny us the apples.

2.  Stereotypes in action: just because a particular American does not speak, say, Italian -- that does not mean that he is a "typical" American who does not know any foreign languages.  On a related note, it is remarkable to me how many fail to realize that there are millions of Americans who are bilingual from childhood -- in addition to learning other languages in school.


----------



## Qcumber

Several years before the current Iraq war broke out, I made a Google search using the terms "hate, "hatred", "hating, "hated", etc. then terms of nationalities like Americans, Arabs, Chinese, French, Japanese, Jews, etc. for the subsets, just to see what English-speaking people hated most.

I was surprised at the large number of French-bashing sites. As far as I remember the Arabs were the most hated, and the French the second most. 

Seeing that, I came to the conclusion that, among all possible Westerners, the Frenchman looms large as the archetypal antinomic foreigner in the average Anglo-Saxon's subconscious mind. 

It also means that the average Anglo-Saxon defines himself by contrast with the archetypal Frenchman, the way a heterosexual male will define himself as being neither a female nor a male homosexual. "I'm what I am because I aren't what they are."

In brief, whatever the policy adopted by a French administration, there will always be British and US citizens with plenty of reasons to bash the French.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

We used to have a somewhat related thread a long time ago http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=5152&page=9&highlight=stereotypes

but now I would like to know the opinions of Americans themselves. 

I have long observed that there is quite a widespread image of Americans as being ignorant, poorly educated, narrow-minded and knowing so little about anything outside of their everyday life cycle. Indeed this is an amazingly common perception of Americans, I stumble over it almost daily. 
In my experience, however, I have met very educated and knowledgeable people but that was mostly within my profession (as well as lots of them here ) and I have seen some really close to reflecting the stereotype but also in a special place.

So here is my question to Americans themselves. How do you perceive this particular image? Do you believe that this is just one of those sheer stereotypes based on geopolitical disagreements and general tendency to create "typical images" or do you think that certain categories of the society accout for this stereotype. Where do you think it comes from so strongly?


----------



## Layzie

Thought I'm not part of the stereotype, I dont have a hard time believing the one about not knowing the world outside our borders.I think it's because the school system doesn't emphasize caring about current events here or around the world. Unless it's something very major, things that go on in the world just arent discussed much.  People care more about ipods, the next football game, their music.  Interest in things such as the war in iraq only goes so far as taking the media's word for it and forming a dilettante's opinion.


----------



## Redisca

I disagree.  People's knowledge of the world and their intellectual interests depend on their occupation and surroundings; you cannot expect a farmer from Oklahoma to declaim Homer in the original anymore than you can expect a farmer from rural France to do the same.  The problem with stereotypes, in addition to the one I already mentioned, is that people compare apples with oranges: as many Russians I've encountered compare MSU graduates (as examples of Russians' enlightenment) to welfare addicts from the Bronx (as examples of Americans' ignorance and laziness).  These comparisons -- of the best thing in one with the worst thing in the other -- are inherently unfair.  Let's compare (if we compare at all) professors with professors, and chimney-sweeps with chimney-sweeps.

Sure, there are plenty of ignorant people in America.  But there are plenty of ignorant people in other countries as well.  What makes Americans stand out is that we have no tradition of covering up one's ignorance with a gloss of "culturedness" -- a tradition which exists, for example, in Russia.  There are also plenty of people who care more about iPODs than about the situation in Darfur, but again -- this is true of _most_ people around the world.  And, in fact, people care MORE about iPODs in countries where technological gadgets are available only to a select few and thus constitute badges of status, as opposed to countries where the average consumer can afford them.

My personal experience -- there is just as much culture and intellectual curiousity here as anywhere else.  The rest is rhetoric over appearances.

PS:  Layzie, I'm a bit confused.  Since only a dilettante looks to the media for information on world events, and you, by your own statement, are not a dilettante -- what sources do you use to get your in-depth info on the war in Iraq?


----------



## maxiogee

Redisca said:


> you cannot expect a farmer from Oklahoma to declaim Homer in the original anymore than you can expect a farmer from rural France to do the same.



Does anyone expect _any person_ to declaim Homer in the original?


----------



## Redisca

maxiogee said:


> Does anyone expect _any person_ to declaim Homer in the original?


  A scholar of ancient Greek, I suppose.


----------



## PianoMan

CrazyFroggy said:


> I'm the first french to post in this thread...
> If think there's a real dislike of the current Bush administration Policy. But is it a dislike of americans? It's not!
> CF


 
I'd like to agree on that, personally, I'm quite outspoken about our nation's policies and consider myself extremely left-wing, displeased with the War in Iraq, America's refusal to participate in the Kyoto Protocol, and our ignoring of information previous to 9-11. But this is not a political discussion so I'll stop there, what I am disheartened by is America's consumerism and materialism, plus, the lack of effort made to further our international cultural knowledge. Of course, I'm American, and I'm patriotic in the sense of our liberty ideals, our initial birth from a struggle for independence, and the golden rule that if you work hard here, you can succeed. 

Back to the international point-of-view, it's quite clear that many are frowning upon our politics and there ARE those all over the world who think we as a people are just as bad as for our foreign policies.  And even beyond that, considered ignorant and blind, and just plain old "turists" in a foreign place.  But, there isn't many who see us like that, and I'd like to stress that we just tend to remember those who frown upon us more than we do those who treat us 100% normally.  And even if they are few, people have a right to be disgusted with us, I just ask that if you are going to be disappointed in an American traveller, make sure they've heartily deserved it, I personally am working so that my ignorance is limited and I don't fall in to such occurances.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Redisca said:


> I disagree. People's knowledge of the world and their intellectual interests depend on their occupation and surroundings; you cannot expect a farmer from Oklahoma to declaim Homer in the original anymore than you can expect a farmer from rural France to do the same. The problem with stereotypes, in addition to the one I already mentioned, is that people compare apples with oranges: as many Russians I've encountered compare MSU graduates (as examples of Russians' enlightenment) to welfare addicts from the Bronx (as examples of Americans' ignorance and laziness). These comparisons -- of the best thing in one with the worst thing in the other -- are inherently unfair. Let's compare (if we compare at all) professors with professors, and chimney-sweeps with chimney-sweeps.
> 
> Sure, there are plenty of ignorant people in America. But there are plenty of ignorant people in other countries as well. What makes Americans stand out is that we have no tradition of covering up one's ignorance with a gloss of "culturedness" -- a tradition which exists, for example, in Russia. There are also plenty of people who care more about iPODs than about the situation in Darfur, but again -- this is true of _most_ people around the world. And, in fact, people care MORE about iPODs in countries where technological gadgets are available only to a select few and thus constitute badges of status, as opposed to countries where the average consumer can afford them.
> 
> My personal experience -- there is just as much culture and intellectual curiousity here as anywhere else. The rest is rhetoric over appearances.


 
This is not quite what I am talking about. OK, I myself have had a simply killing incident with a person from the US Senate who was invited to a concert of Haydn music and was asking whether Haydn plays so often. But, apart from that, I don`t think an average Brit, Russian or Japanese knows more about the background of the Libyan dictatorship or the epic poems of Iceland. What I meant is rather the attitude of narrow-mindness than the actual academic knowledge. Loads of Americans are outstanding specialists in their field, yet they are...I don`t know, conformist somehow, not willing to be different, to bother themselves with anything beyond what they have always been surrounded with. But I stress the fact that, in my impression, applied only to certain categories. 
For instance, I was quite amazed by the level of religious fundamentalism in the States and their fairly aggressive resistance to any possibilities of broadening their horizons, and this seemed to be so widespread, almost part of the fabric of the society, more than just alienated groups. Life evolves around the Bible, the national policy (most often Republican, although I have not as much against Bush as many other people, sorry PianoMan, I am a right-winger). They all try to conform to eating the same food, wearing the same clothes, watching the same programmes, they have the same model of success etc etc. So they are not UNintelligent, they are rather not willing to go beyond their strict limits of lifestyle, to accept anything different.


----------



## djchak

Setwale_Charm said:


> This is not quite what I am talking about. OK, I myself have had a simply killing incident with a person from the US Senate who was invited to a concert of Haydn music and was asking whether Haydn plays so often. But, apart from that, I don`t think an average Brit, Russian or Japanese knows more about the background of the Libyan dictatorship or the epic poems of Iceland. What I meant is rather the attitude of narrow-mindness than the actual academic knowledge. Loads of Americans are outstanding specialists in their field, yet they are...I don`t know, conformist somehow, not willing to be different, to bother themselves with anything beyond what they have always been surrounded with. But I stress the fact that, in my impression, applied only to certain categories.
> For instance, I was quite amazed by the level of religious fundamentalism in the States and their fairly aggressive resistance to any possibilities of broadening their horizons, and this seemed to be so widespread, almost part of the fabric of the society, more than just alienated groups. Life evolves around the Bible, the national policy (most often Republican, although I have not as much against Bush as many other people, sorry PianoMan, I am a right-winger). They all try to conform to eating the same food, wearing the same clothes, watching the same programmes, they have the same model of success etc etc. So they are not UNintelligent, they are rather not willing to go beyond their strict limits of lifestyle, to accept anything different.



So you think that while americans can be specialists, that they are narrow minded when it comes to other cultures? Or academic knowledge about classical arts and literature?

Relegious fundamentalism? Or just people going to church on sunday, practicing thier religion...where's the red line here?

Are we really that conformist/close minded? Certainly, if you took someone from cosmopolitain Berlin, and placed them in a small town in Utah, and said "this is America" I could see how they could get that impression....

If we truly are like that...how does it explain the diversity? The arts and literature, the America I live in every day?


----------



## Redisca

Setwale_Charm said:


> OK, I myself have had a simply killing incident with a person from the US Senate who was invited to a concert of Haydn music and was asking whether Haydn plays so often.


  Well, I guess he wasn't elected for his knowledge of classical music.  Or maybe he was playing a practical joke, knowing that had he stated the Earth was flat, his friends from across the pond would believe he was being serious. I don't know.  I myself have had lots of simply killing incidents with French people who don't know how to boil an egg, Italians who know squat about the opera, and English people who don't get Shakespeare.  (They've _heard_ of Shakespeare, but name-dropping and _knowing_ about the existence of great people of culture is merely the _veneer_ of "culturedness" I was talking about earlier.  In my book, you get no points for having heard of Shakespeare.)



Setwale_Charm said:


> What I meant is rather the attitude of narrow-mindness than the actual academic knowledge. Loads of Americans are outstanding specialists in their field, yet they are...I don`t know, conformist somehow, not willing to be different, to bother themselves with anything beyond what they have always been surrounded with.


  I'm sorry, but that's highly subjective.  I, on the contrary, found these to be the characteristics of Russians, who always like a strong figure of authority to tell them what to think (be it the beloved "generalissimus" or the grade school teacher) and my fellow students in France who, unlike those in the States, seemed to be merely going through the motions.  The complaints against Americans on this point are extremely contradictory: on the one hand, we are being bashed for being too individualistic, on the other hand, we are being bashed for our "conformism".  Well, which is it?  Are we individualists or conformists?



Setwale_Charm said:


> For instance, I was quite amazed by the level of religious fundamentalism in the States and their fairly aggressive resistance to any possibilities of broadening their horizons, and this seemed to be so widespread, almost part of the fabric of the society, more than just alienated groups. Life evolves around the Bible,


You are joking, right?  Where I live, the most devout religious fundamentalists are Sathmars in Williamsburg, who can hardly be characterized as the mainstream of the American society.  Yes, there are some very religious people in the United States -- that's the consequence of having the freedom of religion, as opposed to codified secularism.  By the way, while I am an atheist myself (or an agnostic, if you want), I don't believe that being non-religious is synonymous with having "broad horizons".  Fanaticism manifests itself in many forms, not all of them conventionally "religious".  The gauge of a truly liberal society is not how secular it is (after all, the USSR was fiercely secular, yet hardly liberal), but how willing the various religious and non-religious groups within it are to co-exist and to form a whole.  So, while a lot of people in the United States are very religious, _most_ of them -- save for a small, though vocal, fringe -- leave their neighbors alone and do not define their "Americanness" in religious terms.  Now, _that's_ "broad horizons".



Setwale_Charm said:


> They all try to conform to eating the same food, wearing the same clothes, watching the same programmes, they have the same model of success etc etc. So they are not UNintelligent, they are rather not willing to go beyond their strict limits of lifestyle, to accept anything different.


  Again, I am baffled.  This is a black-and-white stereotype of Americans which has _nothing_ to do with reality.  This may be true of some backwater village in the rural Bible Belt, but it's certainly not true of any urban center in the United States.  

"Strict limits of lifestyle"?  I take it, you've never been to New York.  

"Same food"?  Perhaps commercials and populist literature have led many to believe that we all eat at Mickey D's three times a day, but my hometown has probably the world's most diverse ethnic restaurant scene.  (If you are ever planning to come here, send me a msg -- I'll suggest a culinary tour for you.)  Ethnic neighborhoods and even mainstream supermarkets here have a broader selection of ethnic and speciality foods than anywhere else I've been to (and I've traveled quite a bit, I assure you).  We are a capitalist society, so it's not like this diversity is government-subsidized; if we all ate nothing but burgers and popcorn, then the myriad alternatives wouldn't be on the market -- would they?

"Same model of success"?  Hmm.  Find whatever you are good at (provided it's legal) and run with it; do your own thing; business creativity makes money.  That may sound like "the same model of success", but at least it doesn't mandate that people do the same thing regardless of interests or aptitude.  By contrast, to the extent that all these characterizations are comparative, I just remembered reading somewhere that in France, about 2/3 of people under the age of 25 want to be civil servants.  If that's not conformism or "the same model of success" at work, I don't know what is.

"Wearing the same clothes"?  Okay, you got me, you got me good.  I admit that I always wear a suit to court, but that on weekends, I prefer jeans.  Then again, when I was in Athens last year, I didn't see a single Athenian in a loincloth.  When it came to clothes, they all looked pretty much the same as New Yorkers.  

I've been to 24 countries besides the US -- to some, more than once, and not always as a tourist.  It was my impression that every single one of these places -- while fascinating in its own unique ways -- was more uniform in culture, beliefs, and behavior than the US.  IMHO, of course.

(So, where in the US have  you been?  And, just our of curiousity -- what was the Senator's name?  I'd like to check him out on Wikipedia.)


----------



## LV4-26

Redisca said:


> [..] I just remembered reading somewhere that in France, about 2/3 of people under the age of 25 want to be civil servants. If that's not conformism or "the same model of success" at work, I don't know what is.


How do you call that in pool games? I mean when ball A strikes ball B, which in turn strikes ball C?


----------



## Redisca

A "kiss" or a "kiss shot", I believe.  I don't know, I don't really play pool.  In any event, somehow I sense that "the pot calling the cattle black" isn't it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Stereotypes are among my most favorite superficialities.

Is almost always possible to find a few examples or personal anecdotes to illustrate them.  It is also possible, if one wishes to take the time and trouble, to refute them with still more examples. They are sufficiently annoying that they usually elicit a response.  This may be as laconic as an affirmative grunt from a fellow stereotyper.

What they tend to have in common, regardless of the target population, is that they are-

—wrong at least as often as they are accurate, and usually more often;
—reflections of the stereotyper's very personal aggravation at a single individual or a small group;
—apt to elicit more statistically meaningless personal anecdotes that reinforce the self-righteousness of the first stereotyper, and rouse the ire of members of the larger stereotyped population.
—equally applicable to almost any population group other than the original target, with similar accuracy.

Stereotypes, as most over-simplifications, are handy ways for lazy people to generalize the terrifyingly complex world that surrounds them.  Lazy people have many other noble characteristics, but we will avoid listing these, as they are stereotypes, and therefore without inherent merit.  

The word 'stereotype' was invented by a French printer.  The modern use of the term is ascribed to an American. These statements should provide fertile soil for the stereotypically inclined.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Redisca said:


> Well, I guess he wasn't elected for his knowledge of classical music. Or maybe he was playing a practical joke, knowing that had he stated the Earth was flat, his friends from across the pond would believe he was being serious. I don't know. I myself have had lots of simply killing incidents with French people who don't know how to boil an egg, Italians who know squat about the opera, and English people who don't get Shakespeare. (They've _heard_ of Shakespeare, but name-dropping and _knowing_ about the existence of great people of culture is merely the _veneer_ of "culturedness" I was talking about earlier. In my book, you get no points for having heard of Shakespeare.)
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's highly subjective. I, on the contrary, found these to be the characteristics of Russians, who always like a strong figure of authority to tell them what to think (be it the beloved "generalissimus" or the grade school teacher) and my fellow students in France who, unlike those in the States, seemed to be merely going through the motions. The complaints against Americans on this point are extremely contradictory: on the one hand, we are being bashed for being too individualistic, on the other hand, we are being bashed for our "conformism". Well, which is it? Are we individualists or conformists?
> 
> 
> You are joking, right? Where I live, the most devout religious fundamentalists are Sathmars in Williamsburg, who can hardly be characterized as the mainstream of the American society. Yes, there are some very religious people in the United States -- that's the consequence of having the freedom of religion, as opposed to codified secularism. By the way, while I am an atheist myself (or an agnostic, if you want), I don't believe that being non-religious is synonymous with having "broad horizons". Fanaticism manifests itself in many forms, not all of them conventionally "religious". The gauge of a truly liberal society is not how secular it is (after all, the USSR was fiercely secular, yet hardly liberal), but how willing the various religious and non-religious groups within it are to co-exist and to form a whole. So, while a lot of people in the United States are very religious, _most_ of them -- save for a small, though vocal, fringe -- leave their neighbors alone and do not define their "Americanness" in religious terms. Now, _that's_ "broad horizons".
> 
> Again, I am baffled. This is a black-and-white stereotype of Americans which has _nothing_ to do with reality. This may be true of some backwater village in the rural Bible Belt, but it's certainly not true of any urban center in the United States.
> 
> "Strict limits of lifestyle"? I take it, you've never been to New York.
> 
> "Same food"? Perhaps commercials and populist literature have led many to believe that we all eat at Mickey D's three times a day, but my hometown has probably the world's most diverse ethnic restaurant scene. (If you are ever planning to come here, send me a msg -- I'll suggest a culinary tour for you.) Ethnic neighborhoods and even mainstream supermarkets here have a broader selection of ethnic and speciality foods than anywhere else I've been to (and I've traveled quite a bit, I assure you). We are a capitalist society, so it's not like this diversity is government-subsidized; if we all ate nothing but burgers and popcorn, then the myriad alternatives wouldn't be on the market -- would they?
> 
> "Same model of success"? Hmm. Find whatever you are good at (provided it's legal) and run with it; do your own thing; business creativity makes money. That may sound like "the same model of success", but at least it doesn't mandate that people do the same thing regardless of interests or aptitude. By contrast, to the extent that all these characterizations are comparative, I just remembered reading somewhere that in France, about 2/3 of people under the age of 25 want to be civil servants. If that's not conformism or "the same model of success" at work, I don't know what is.
> 
> "Wearing the same clothes"? Okay, you got me, you got me good. I admit that I always wear a suit to court, but that on weekends, I prefer jeans. Then again, when I was in Athens last year, I didn't see a single Athenian in a loincloth. When it came to clothes, they all looked pretty much the same as New Yorkers.
> 
> I've been to 24 countries besides the US -- to some, more than once, and not always as a tourist. It was my impression that every single one of these places -- while fascinating in its own unique ways -- was more uniform in culture, beliefs, and behavior than the US. IMHO, of course.
> 
> (So, where in the US have you been? And, just our of curiousity -- what was the Senator's name? I'd like to check him out on Wikipedia.)


 
Redisca, you are suffering from megalomania. You are trying to prove to me on your own example that the stereotypes do not work in your case. But I am not talking about YOU!! You alone surely do not represent the American nation. 
You misunderstand me but what is interesting is that you yourself employ a lot of stereotypes which you assume I must have. Even without them. my impression is still based on comparison with other cultures.
I admit that NY is probably the least affected by those stereotypical features but that`s rather an exception, NY is NY.



Redisca said:


> (So, where in the US have you been? And, just our of curiousity -- what was the Senator's name? I'd like to check him out on Wikipedia.


Well, this sounds so Russian!!! But I hope as privacy is important in the American culture too you will be ready to understand that this would be somehow unethical as anybody can theoretically commit a gaffe and he was still a nicest person all in all. And after all, I promise you, Wikipedia does not mention the incident with Haydn or his musical preferences  (who is a widely known composer no matter what you opt for). Let us respect people`s privacy, as I am sure, is a custom in New York. I wouldn`t at all like some third party to come up to him some day and remind of the story.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

djchak said:


> So you think that while americans can be specialists, that they are narrow minded when it comes to other cultures? Or academic knowledge about classical arts and literature?
> 
> Relegious fundamentalism? Or just people going to church on sunday, practicing thier religion...where's the red line here?
> 
> Are we really that conformist/close minded? Certainly, if you took someone from cosmopolitain Berlin, and placed them in a small town in Utah, and said "this is America" I could see how they could get that impression....
> 
> If we truly are like that...how does it explain the diversity? The arts and literature, the America I live in every day?


 

I think, djchak, the point is that the US are very much a cultue in itself, so to speak, which makes them strong on the one hand but somehow closed on the other. Any "self_sufficient" culture tends to be unwilling to accept anything else. "Self-contained' is the word which comes onto my mind when I think of the US as a culture. There is a strong American "spirit", style of life and, despite the diversity which surely exists between the states, it is still very definitely ONE nation, one American society. It makes them strong politically, gives the sense of unity which you wouldn`t find in Europe so much (and that is a bit lamentable in my view). In Europe where everything is much more lax (not all places but on the whole) and one can choose whether to integrate into the society (which is probably why Europe will always have more trouble with the integration of aliens than the US), but in the States you somehow either fit in or remain a stranger for the rest of time. That said, Americans are still invariably friendly and kind people even if you don`t and that`s what I probably appreciated most when in the States, the warmth of the people. 
This feature is neither positive nor negative, it just is and that adds to the uniqueness and colour of the world.


----------



## cuchuflete

Stereotyping with Charm said:
			
		

> Americans are still invariably friendly and kind people...



I will invariably remember this.  I have heard and read many broad generalizations of the negative variety, which by dint of being generalizations were frequently erroneous.  Now I have the positive side of the same tin coin.  Too bad it's not invariably true.




_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
All stereotypes turn out to be true. This is a horrifying thing about life. All those things you fought against as a youth: you begin to realize they’re stereotypes because they’re true.—David Cronenberg


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> I will invariably remember this. I have heard and read many broad generalizations of the negative variety, which by dint of being generalizations were frequently erroneous. Now I have the positive side of the same tin coin. Too bad it's not invariably true.


 Well, I often hear (from Americans themselves or from Russians too) that it is all just the surface. But I see little sense in getting upset about that. Even if it is, it is still better than open animosity. I am never going to get to know those hundreds of people I meet every week at a more personal level but do I need that flood of hostility to be poured unto me daily?? I do not know how many of these smiling ones will come to rescue if smth serious happens, but that at any rate happens more rarely than the modd spoilt by general unfriendliness.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> I will invariably remember this. I have heard and read many broad generalizations of the negative variety, which by dint of being generalizations were frequently erroneous. Now I have the positive side of the same tin coin. Too bad it's not invariably true.


I think the problem are not generalizations themselves but the way people are so sensitive about them. They inevitably hear behind any generalization: "you are all like that, all of you" and they start like Redisca proving that they personally are not like that. But generalization is only about a trend, a prevailing feature. If you say that in the country X it is very common to do this and that, that doesn`t mean there is no citizen of X that does exactly the opposite!! We are only talking of the distinctive feature of the majority. In fact, any travel guide, any feedback, any sociological report has generalizations behind it.
I am against the abolition of generalizations as they are important cultural aspects and in many places without remembering about major cultural and mental differences you are just likely to get into trouble. One only has to remember that it does not apply to 100% of the population and start taking it easier instead of seeing an offence behind every remark.


----------



## LV4-26

There's no stronger way to reinforce an individual's feeling of belonging to a community than criticizing or otherwise attacking that community. What is normally considered as only one feature - among innumerable others -  of one's identity becomes the most outstanding to him/her. Make negative generalizations about nation X and its natives will feel more Xians than ever...I think. Let the above remark be taken as coming from someone who's nobody's idea of a patriot in usual cirumstances and yet has already noticed that kind of reaction in himself.


----------



## ireney

The Americans are invariably human and that's the only generalisation I'm going to make about them, or any other  group of people.

I find generalisations about Greeks (about 11 million of us  )false. I am not a Greek by many of the most usual ones. How many are the Americans again? 300,319,367 a site says. 
The "all X are Y" are obviously wrong
The "most X are Y" needs research. Until I actually meet and get to know most X I cannot make such a statement.

We need to belong to a group and the most usual way of defining this group is by contrast to another. That's where most generalisations come from. That, and as a way to use our brains less.


----------



## fenixpollo

ireney said:


> The Americans are invariably human...


Why, thank you for the compliment, Irene!  That's the nicest thing that anyone has said about us in 6 years!


----------



## ernest_

In Europe, advocates of liberalism (i.e. the belief that "free market" is the solution to every single problem under the sun) and those who speak against the welfare state are often, almost always, supporters of the USA. Far right lunatics and anti-communists are always pro-USA, as well. Therefore, many people in Europe associate this country with right-wing policies, "savage capitalism", and overall selfishness. I for one think that this is true to some extent, maybe not as much as many will think though.


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:


> The Americans are invariably human





fenixpollo said:


> Why, thank you for the compliment, Irene!  That's the nicest thing that anyone has said about us in 6 years!



Steady on there Chicken, she didn't add an 'e' at the end!


----------



## LV4-26

ernest_ said:


> In Europe, advocates of liberalism (i.e. the belief that "free market" is the solution to every single problem under the sun) and those who speak against the welfare state are often, almost always, supporters of the USA. Far right lunatics and anti-communists are always pro-USA, as well. Therefore, many people in Europe associate this country with right-wing policies, "savage capitalism", and overall selfishness.


That's a pretty accurate observation, I think.


----------



## cuchuflete

ernest_ said:


> Therefore, many people in Europe associate this country with right-wing policies, "savage capitalism", and overall selfishness. I for one think that this is true to some extent, maybe not as much as many will think though.





LV4-26 said:


> That's a pretty accurate observation, I think.



The observation that many people in Europe associate the US with all those things may be an accurate observation.  Whether the association is correct is another question entirely.  

George of WMD used the same sort of association in reverse to paint John Kerry as a "bleeding heart, nanny state-loving wimp" by associating him with Europe in general, and with France in particular.  The problem with such generalizations is not that they are totally lacking in accuracy or some factual basis, but that they conveniently take over the listener's entire mind space, crowding out the variety inherent in the target.
Even more damning is the obligatory add-on remark, "Of course there are exceptions, but...." which serves to reinforce the stereotype as a valid generality.


----------



## djchak

Setwale_Charm said:


> I think the problem are not generalizations themselves but the way people are so sensitive about them. They inevitably hear behind any generalization: "you are all like that, all of you" and they start like Redisca proving that they personally are not like that. But generalization is only about a trend, a prevailing feature. If you say that in the country X it is very common to do this and that, that doesn`t mean there is no citizen of X that does exactly the opposite!! We are only talking of the distinctive feature of the majority. In fact, any travel guide, any feedback, any sociological report has generalizations behind it.
> I am against the abolition of generalizations as they are important cultural aspects and in many places without remembering about major cultural and mental differences you are just likely to get into trouble. One only has to remember that it does not apply to 100% of the population and start taking it easier instead of seeing an offence behind every remark.



So basically...you can sterotype, put negative generalizations on Americans... but if they argue back against them...."Gee why are they so sensitive!" 

To be fair, the thread is about american bashing, and you are being honest, so I give you more credit then you think....

But why the shock and suprise that americans would actually ...reply? 

(I guess we should be in the fundie churches instead, cleaning out our shotguns)


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:


> (I guess we should be in the fundie churches instead, cleaning out our shotguns)



Well you see, now you've just proved the American-bashers point! 
*Only* an American would think that bringing a shotgun to church is 'normal'.
Dare I suggest that this is how you think 'we' see you, and that the reason you think it is because you know more about the truth of it than we do? 

I'd love to stay and chat, but I've got a social welfare system which I've got to go and milk.


----------



## JamesM

I know of no American besides David Kouresh and his wacko Waco cult that would actually take a gun to church. I believe what djchak was doing was playing out a caricature of American Fundamentalists. 



> *Only* an American would think that bringing a shotgun to church is 'normal'.


 
Maxiogee, do you honestly think that any American, Fundamentalist or otherwise, who is not certifiably insane by American doctors would consider bringing a shotgun to church as being normal? Can you point to a single real-life example of this?

The danger in joking about these things is that people who have no actual experience of Americans in their native habitat do believe there's some element of truth to them. Americans think it's funny because it is so patently untrue that it's ludicrous.

If you actually believe it's true that any American takes a shotgun to church, it says more about the distorted perception of Americans than it does about some mythical grain of truth there might be in such a ridiculous notion.


----------



## maxiogee

JamesM said:


> Maxiogee, do you honestly think that any American, Fundamentalist or otherwise, who is not certifiably insane by American doctors would consider bringing a shotgun to church as being normal? Can you point to a single real-life example of this?
> 
> The danger in joking about these things is that …



… someone will quote the line in one's joke after the smiley!
… someone will have a sense of humour failure and miss the point of the post - thereby proving the other wildly held belief that Americans don't do/get irony - and definitely don't do/get irony in humour.

And we probably had best stay off the concept of "certifiably insane by American doctors" - why should they be the judge? Are other doctors going to have a different opinion of sanity?




JamesM said:


> Maxiogee, do you honestly think


Sometimes I think, other times I don't - and yet other times I only think I think


----------



## JamesM

Here are some facts from our most recent complete census of the U.S. that may or may not go against your impression of the "average" American:

- The majority of Americans (79%) live in metropolitan settings, not rural areas
- More than a quarter of Americans have a college degree
- More than a quarter of Americans live alone (no implied link to college degrees  )
- 1 in 5 speak a language other than English in the home



sources: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/Census_and_Statistics.htm 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States


----------



## Setwale_Charm

djchak said:


> So basically...you can sterotype, put negative generalizations on Americans... but if they argue back against them...."Gee why are they so sensitive!"
> 
> To be fair, the thread is about american bashing, and you are being honest, so I give you more credit then you think....
> 
> But why the shock and suprise that americans would actually ...reply?
> 
> (I guess we should be in the fundie churches instead, cleaning out our shotguns)


 
 djchak, I think you are fantasizing or else seeing only what you want to see.  Where in that post did I say anything about AMERICAN sensitivity?? And if you had read some more of my posts on other threads , then, you have observed surely that I also disagree with Brits who react over-sensitively to any steretyping of their nation. Do not see anything to get nervous about there. I welcome the vision of others about my own nation and have never been offended by anything. There is a lot to learn even from the negative impressions.


----------



## justjukka

What I dislike above all American bashing is an American bashing his or her own country.  If it were so simple, I would say, "Love it or leave it," but simplicity is never the case.  I have homosexual friends (as well as heterosexual) who hate this country because of the marriage amendment.  I can see their anger in that as it is a reflection of the majority's mindset.

What saddens me most is when Americans bash and hate their country because of those leading it.  I don't care who is elected, but we must show respect to our country.  I don't care if one believes in God or not, nor if one disagrees with the war, it is more than just disrespectful not to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance or National Anthem.

A country is not only what the elected leaders make of it.  They are temporary.  We can elect and impeach any of them as we see fit.  But as long as one is on his or her motherland's soil, he/she should support and contribute to the well-being of the country.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Well, I think the problem of violence at schools is a big issue in Germany too. That doesn`t stop me from loving Germans! And trying to form an impressionof what makes Americans distict as Americans doesn`t stop me from having loads of wonderful American friends. We just have to learn not to take the negative sides so negatively and assume that they mean hositility.


----------



## LV4-26

cuchuflete said:


> The observation that many people in Europe associate the US with all those things may be an accurate observation. Whether the association is correct is another question entirely.


 As far as I am concerned, it goes without saying. I hope I made that clear in my previous post. 
Indeed, I've seen, read, heard many people who seemed obsessed by the concepts of _compete, competitor, competition_. Not all of them were American, far from it.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I don`t know. I think I myself have always been so calm about jokes about my nation, I always thought those stereotypes funny, not offensive even if they are somewhat negative, so I don`t have any problems with this topic.


----------



## jabogitlu

> What saddens me most is when Americans bash and hate their country because of those leading it. I don't care who is elected, but we must show respect to our country. I don't care if one believes in God or not, nor if one disagrees with the war, it is more than just disrespectful not to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance or National Anthem.


I completely, and respectfully, disagree.  I do not stand during the Pledge of Allegiance because it is, for me, false.  America is not a country Under God (except spatially, if your thinking is along those lines ).

Respecting this country is one thing, but not piping up when things run afoul is disrespecting it.  I like the US a lot, which is why it makes me so angry when morons like Bush, Cheney, Rice, and 98% of the other staffers and congresspeople get the reins.  America has so much potential because we, as a people, are resilient.  We're tough, we're real.  And that's why I respect our country, but I channel my respect through constant vigilance.  I will _not_ support any attack on our free state, veiled (Allegience) or not.

Trust me, if it were at all possible, I would refrain from using American currency.

(And for the record I've thought about moving to Canada or Sweden a few times. )


----------



## LouisaB

'Bashing' of any nation is unacceptable, especially on a forum which does as much for multi-culturism as this one does. But the question has been asked, so I'll do my best to answer from an English perspective. I totally agree that it's ridiculous to base hostility towards a country on the behaviour of a few individuals - I wouldn't myself want to be judged on the basis of the behaviour of many Brits abroad (lager louts and football hooligans among them).

But there _are_ two things which foster international hostility to Americans, which I think are worth mentioning, because they _could be changed_. 

1. Airports

These have already been mentioned three times - which is significant. My own experience of US airports is so dreadful, I have resolved never, ever again to fly to, or even _through_ the USA. I'm not just talking about baggage-handling (though I've had problems with that too) but the way in which non-US nationals are treated as (frankly) scum. Daytime flights from the UK aren't too bad (worse than any other airports in the world that I've personally been to, but at least you don't need valium to get over them). But try a night flight from the Caribbean sometime. There will be 6-8 desks open for 7 US nationals to walk through. There will be 2 desks open for 470 non US nationals to queue for (that may be an exaggeration - the figure I mean is the number of people on two separate Boeing 747 flights, whatever that comes to). Twice I've missed a connecting flight at LAX because of this delay. Even that might be bearable (and we all understand about security) but the bullying behaviour at immigration is degrading, dehumanising and despicable. I once waited in line behind a sobbing Jamaican woman who was being forced to call the immigration officer 'sir'. I did nothing about it, and I still burn with shame at the recollection, but it was my fourth time through the US and I knew what would happen if I kicked up. The usual line is 'We can do this my way, or you can go to the back of the line'. I was tired, frankly frightened, and needed desperately to catch my onward flight, and I did nothing, which is shameful. I have seen so many people driven to tears of humiliation I have lost count. I remember a lovely Irish family on one flight into Chicago O'Hare, who were doing their best to keep everyone round them cheerful despite the delays, and then the youngest boy (aged about 7) allowed his sandalled foot to slide about one inch over the 'line'. The immigration official yelled 'You have now illegally entered the United States of America'. He wasn't joking. He didn't stop until the boy was crying. He was a huge man with a gun on his hip, and the child was terrified. His father dared to protest, and that poor family were still at the counter when I'd cleared it, picked up my baggage and was leaving. 

Less personally distressing, but in some ways more disturbing, was an experience suffered by our travelling companions one time in LAX. The man had committed a juvenile offence (shoplifting), long ago expunged under 'limitations', and no barrier to entry. The immigration official checked the couple's records on his computer, told the woman 'You've been a good girl', then told the man 'But you've been a naughty boy, haven't you?'. The man's girlfriend knew nothing about his past record, and should _not_ have been told in this way, especially as it was irrelevant at the time, and they were both waved through. They complained to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about their treatment, and received a letter saying 'Yes, we know, we get complaints about them all the time, but it's the USA, they do that kind of thing to non-nationals. There is nothing we can do'. The same thing happened when British nationals (including me) complained at our fingerprints being taken and kept on database without consent - which is an offence against human rights in Europe. The official US line of 'it's to ensure the safety of our flights' was ridiculous, because the only people printed were those arriving _in_ the US, having already _had_ the flight. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office official I spoke to said wearily 'It's the US, you're a non-national, forget human rights. There's nothing we can do'.

Is there really nothing? Foreigners like me are powerless, but maybe if enough ordinary US citizens complained? No, normal US citizens did not hire or train these people, so are less accountable for this than they are for the election of George Bush. But these immigration officials are front-line in dealings with the rest of the world. Can you really, really, blame anyone who's been through this for having a fear and hatred of America? I did some research recently at Gatwick airport for a new drama series, and learned they make a special effort for incoming flights from the US, because they know the state people will be in when they get here. They had one awful incident a couple of years ago when an Englishman attacked a perfectly innocent American in the baggage-hall, and when questioned said only that all the time he'd spent at the US gateway airport, he'd got through it only by promising himself he would beat the shit out of the first American he met on his own soil. Totally unfair, and completely wrong - but a tiny, tiny bit understandable.

That's only 1) of the two, but this is already a ludicrously mammoth post, so I'll save the second for when my pulse rate's gone down! Yes, it upsets me. Is it really 'American- bashing' to object to this?

I'd really like to know what Americans think.


----------



## rob ander

what I think is what you are feeling on a personal basis(this is not critical of you,because only natural) one major U.S. airport I was scanned and patted down by 2 security agents detained for 10 minutes, searching for contraband,and I  am USA citizen!  I believe many misconceptions about America arise because of hollywood and their movies.typical,average people just don't live that way, as portraided


----------



## LouisaB

rob ander said:


> what I think is what you are feeling on a personal basis(this is not critical of you,because only natural) one major U.S. airport I was scanned and patted down by 2 security agents detained for 10 minutes, searching for contraband,and I am USA citizen!


 
I'm afraid I knew you must be. Only a US citizen would think being delayed for ten whole minutes in the U.S. was a problem. Think in terms of hours, and you'll get closer to what the Non-US world endures in the States. But even so, as I said, I don't complain about security.

Still, you're right, of course, what I've written relates only to my personal experience. Over the last 11 years, I've had 6 daytime airport experiences in the USA, and 12 of the type I've described above. Of those 12, 100% have been appalling. Maybe I've just been unlucky. Maybe the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (who deal with _all_ British citizens travelling to the States) have been unlucky too. Personally, if I heard about even _one_ of these experiences happening to a visitor to the UK, I'd be distressed and angry (never mind the many I haven't even mentioned yet). But perhaps American citizens don't feel the same?

I don't believe this, though. On the occasion I mentioned above of the Jamaican woman being humiliated, I happened to catch the eye of a US citizen just about to stroll through his queue-less gate. He saw what was happening, and I honestly believe he was as angry and upset as I was. He hesitated, I saw him do it. I've held into that image for a long time, and it's helped me _not_ to turn into an American-basher. I honestly believe most US citizens are decent, humanitarian people, who would be as appalled and ashamed at what's done in their name as I would be if it happened here.



> I believe many misconceptions about America arise because of hollywood and their movies.typical,average people just don't live that way, as portraided


 
Here I agree with you. That's my number 2. It's already been mentioned by stargazer, and cuchuflete has made the very pertinent and honest point that the film and TV moguls are not ignorant at all - they are actually very good at their job, because they know what Americans will want to watch. And that, of course, is why this is a legitimate excuse for other people to react against them.

If 'Independence Day' had been made in the UK, and the script merely transposed to England, it would have been laughed out of cinemas here as jingoistic, self-glorifying rubbbish. I actually watched this film in LA, in the company of intelligent, well-educated American television executives, and _none of them saw anything odd about it at all._ I was really shaken by that. I remember sitting in the dark of that cinema, and thinking never mind the aliens on the screen, who are these people I'm sitting with, who think this is OK?

Imagine if an English made-film had to have a line like 'there's a space ship threatening the capital of America', because the executives believed the audiences wouldn't otherwise know where it was. Imagine an English-made film which rewrote history to have the Brits take Iwo Jima in WWII, because British audiences wouldn't be interested otherwise (just think of U-571 for starters). Imagine a great American sci-fi novel which an English film-company had to reset from Washington to London, because otherwise British audiences wouldn't care what happened to the people (think War Of The Worlds). These are all decisions made by film executives, and it's unfair to blame individual Americans for them, but they're based on what American audiences will commercially accept. If this _did _happen in the UK, I'd be ashamed. I certainly wouldn't blame other countries for bashing us, because we'd thoroughly deserve it.

In the past, England _has_ deserved such bashing. There's no direct literary evidence that I know of, but I'm sure there must be some, because it's quite clear the perception of England by other countries prior to WWII is that we saw ourselves as innately superior to other nations. Even Englishmen suspected this (hence Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore, where the hero is let off punishment, because he could have been a foreigner, but is actually an Englishman, hurrah!). It would be a very smug and stupid Englishman who didn't acknowledge that such widespread detestation must have had a basis in _something._

England is not in this position now. Indeed, quite the opposite, we go round apologising for everything, even slavery, despite being the major power in abolishing it (er....quite a long time before the freedom-loving States, by the way). 

But America _is._ I suspect most Americans (and probably all of them in this forum) would resent as much as I do the behaviour by their media and airports. These things are both of them ambassadors for their country, and they let the USA down badly. People like me can't change them. But ordinary Americans surely can, and will, given time.

Or am I wrong?

Louisa


----------



## cuchuflete

Louisa's recounting very unpleasant recollections of stupid behaviour by ill-trained government employees is not American bashing.  It is reporting.  

Tens of millions of visitors come to the US every year.  The numbers are really astonishing to me.



> TOTAL ARRIVALS
> 
> 
> 1998 ----------  1999 ----------    2000   ----------     2001 ---------     2002 ----------     2003 ----------  2004 ----------  2005
> *46,376,587* - *48,509,187*   -        *51,237,701*     -      *46,926,868*   -        *43,580,707*    -       *41,218,213*     -      *46,084,257*    -       *49,401,528*



With nearly fifty million entries, and humans involved, I would  be shocked if there were no incidents of rotten behaviour.  But the things Louisa wrote about are not nearly so uncommon as they should be.  

I've had rifles pointed at me when crossing a border between two western European countries.  I had to take the strange, dark object from the black case, assemble it very,very slowly and carefully, explaining at every instant what I was doing, while constantly repeating that it was not a weapon.
I was scared and sweating.  


The incident finally came to an end when I gently lifted the black tube, with metalic parts all over it, to my lips..........................


... and played the national anthem of the country of entry on my clarinet.  


I have entered that same country dozens of times afterwards without incident.

Is entering the US more trying than entry into many other countries? Probably it is.  Are immigration or security agents properly trained?  Some are, probably most, but the ones who are not do a lot of damage.

Does any of this discussion constitute "American bashing" by a UK or US citizen?  No.


----------



## djchak

LouisaB said:


> 'Bashing' of any nation is unacceptable, especially on a forum which does as much for multi-culturism as this one does. But the question has been asked, so I'll do my best to answer from an English perspective. I totally agree that it's ridiculous to base hostility towards a country on the behaviour of a few individuals - I wouldn't myself want to be judged on the basis of the behaviour of many Brits abroad (lager louts and football hooligans among them).
> 
> But there _are_ two things which foster international hostility to Americans, which I think are worth mentioning, because they _could be changed_.
> 
> 1. Airports
> 
> These have already been mentioned three times - which is significant. My own experience of US airports is so dreadful, I have resolved never, ever again to fly to, or even _through_ the USA. I'm not just talking about baggage-handling (though I've had problems with that too) but the way in which non-US nationals are treated as (frankly) scum. Daytime flights from the UK aren't too bad (worse than any other airports in the world that I've personally been to, but at least you don't need valium to get over them). But try a night flight from the Caribbean sometime. There will be 6-8 desks open for 7 US nationals to walk through. There will be 2 desks open for 470 non US nationals to queue for (that may be an exaggeration - the figure I mean is the number of people on two separate Boeing 747 flights, whatever that comes to). Twice I've missed a connecting flight at LAX because of this delay. Even that might be bearable (and we all understand about security) but the bullying behaviour at immigration is degrading, dehumanising and despicable. I once waited in line behind a sobbing Jamaican woman who was being forced to call the immigration officer 'sir'. I did nothing about it, and I still burn with shame at the recollection, but it was my fourth time through the US and I knew what would happen if I kicked up. The usual line is 'We can do this my way, or you can go to the back of the line'. I was tired, frankly frightened, and needed desperately to catch my onward flight, and I did nothing, which is shameful. I have seen so many people driven to tears of humiliation I have lost count. I remember a lovely Irish family on one flight into Chicago O'Hare, who were doing their best to keep everyone round them cheerful despite the delays, and then the youngest boy (aged about 7) allowed his sandalled foot to slide about one inch over the 'line'. The immigration official yelled 'You have now illegally entered the United States of America'. He wasn't joking. He didn't stop until the boy was crying. He was a huge man with a gun on his hip, and the child was terrified. His father dared to protest, and that poor family were still at the counter when I'd cleared it, picked up my baggage and was leaving.
> 
> Less personally distressing, but in some ways more disturbing, was an experience suffered by our travelling companions one time in LAX. The man had committed a juvenile offence (shoplifting), long ago expunged under 'limitations', and no barrier to entry. The immigration official checked the couple's records on his computer, told the woman 'You've been a good girl', then told the man 'But you've been a naughty boy, haven't you?'. The man's girlfriend knew nothing about his past record, and should _not_ have been told in this way, especially as it was irrelevant at the time, and they were both waved through. They complained to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about their treatment, and received a letter saying 'Yes, we know, we get complaints about them all the time, but it's the USA, they do that kind of thing to non-nationals. There is nothing we can do'. The same thing happened when British nationals (including me) complained at our fingerprints being taken and kept on database without consent - which is an offence against human rights in Europe. The official US line of 'it's to ensure the safety of our flights' was ridiculous, because the only people printed were those arriving _in_ the US, having already _had_ the flight. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office official I spoke to said wearily 'It's the US, you're a non-national, forget human rights. There's nothing we can do'.
> 
> Is there really nothing? Foreigners like me are powerless, but maybe if enough ordinary US citizens complained? No, normal US citizens did not hire or train these people, so are less accountable for this than they are for the election of George Bush. But these immigration officials are front-line in dealings with the rest of the world. Can you really, really, blame anyone who's been through this for having a fear and hatred of America? I did some research recently at Gatwick airport for a new drama series, and learned they make a special effort for incoming flights from the US, because they know the state people will be in when they get here. They had one awful incident a couple of years ago when an Englishman attacked a perfectly innocent American in the baggage-hall, and when questioned said only that all the time he'd spent at the US gateway airport, he'd got through it only by promising himself he would beat the shit out of the first American he met on his own soil. Totally unfair, and completely wrong - but a tiny, tiny bit understandable.
> 
> That's only 1) of the two, but this is already a ludicrously mammoth post, so I'll save the second for when my pulse rate's gone down! Yes, it upsets me. Is it really 'American- bashing' to object to this?
> 
> I'd really like to know what Americans think.



First of all, I want to tell you...

Your post is absolutely excellent, and correct.

Most airport security employees ARE poorly trained, and it does seem like thier job is to instill as much fear as they can.

With that said, many other countries are no different.

We need to set a realistic standard of service...not just in the U.S..... but internationally.

With that being said... who's going to do it?

It would be a totally thankless job.

Even if we shut down the airports for say...a month...and fired all the security personel...the only people I can think of the replace them would be the armed forces.

Oh..about Independance day...the reason why no one balked at the film...is we don't consider what was in the content of that film to be nationalism....at worst it's campy, pro patriotic entertainment...none of the "enemies" were humans, they were hostile aliens...it was a typical big budget mindless entertainment movie..

The British version.... is basically the James Bond films. Before I saw those as a kid, I never realized the british were both suave ladykillers with superhuman strength and cunning.....

Getting back to the Airport issue... in some ways, I do think it would be a good idea to shut down the Airports for non essential travel....but it would lead to chaos...just look at what happened after Sept. 11th.

For the airports to change, someone would have to make it a pesidential election issue...and to be honest, this would have...shall we say..mixed results.


----------



## Mate

Many American travellers seem to be very shocked -sometimes even upset- when they realize how unpopular they are to most of "the rest".

What amazes me is the poor understanding that many of these travelers have in regard to how they are viewed by "the rest" and why.


----------



## djchak

Mateamargo said:


> Many American travellers seem to be very shocked -sometimes even upset- when they realize how unpopular they are to most of "the rest".
> 
> What amazes me is the poor understanding that many of these travelers have in regard to how they are viewed by "the rest" and why.



So, what should they understand about how "the rest" views them?


----------



## LouisaB

djchak said:


> First of all, I want to tell you...
> 
> Your post is absolutely excellent, and correct.
> 
> Most airport security employees ARE poorly trained, and it does seem like thier job is to instill as much fear as they can.
> 
> With that said, many other countries are no different.


 
I really do appreciate the courtesy of your response, but I'm not really sure it's true to say many other countries are no different. It's absolutely true that security is very tight all over the world, and experiences like cuchuflete's are all too horribly common, but although I hate this, I understand it, and as I said above, security is not my issue. What worries me is the tone and attitude of immigration officials in the USA, and I honestly have never encountered this anywhere else in the world. Of course, it's difficult for any of us to know what it's like being a non-national in our own country, but after my first US experience, I kept a special eye out at London Heathrow to see if we were just as bad to _our _non-nationals - and saw rows and rows of desks open in order to reduce queues, and the officials at them were actually smiling. More significantly, the non-UK people on the same flight as ours reached the baggage hall only moments behind us. This might not be typical, of course, but it was interesting.



> Even if we shut down the airports for say...a month...and fired all the security personel...the only people I can think of the replace them would be the armed forces.


 
I don't think one would need to be this drastic! As I say, it's only immigration, not security, that I've found to be worse than anywhere else. I would think all one need do is lean on the Airport bosses to retrain their immigration staff - and one day off per man/woman shouldn't place undue strain. One would also need to spend a little more money in employing more of them - or being prepared to move staff from empty 'US Nationals' desks to the desks for Non-Nationals at busy times.

Some things, however, might require legislation, such as respecting the human rights of other countries.



> Oh..about Independance day...the reason why no one balked at the film...is we don't consider what was in the content of that film to be nationalism....at worst it's campy, pro patriotic entertainment...none of the "enemies" were humans, they were hostile aliens...it was a typical big budget mindless entertainment movie..
> 
> The British version.... is basically the James Bond films. Before I saw those as a kid, I never realized the british were both suave ladykillers with superhuman strength and cunning.....


 
It's not just the 'Americans Save The World' thing I object to - though I find its humourlessness a little unnerving. Compare that to the attitude in the Bond films, for instance, where an English audience is expected to laugh as heartily as anyone else at the ridiculousness of the situations. Also I don't honestly think that Bond is presented as representing 'the British' - I think he's almost a comic-book superhero. A film representing the President and armed forces of a specific country _is_ saying 'this is America'. But have a look at the script of Independence Day, particularly the descriptions of what's happening in the rest of the world (the line about the capitals of India, England and Germany comes from Independence Day) and the President's speech about a universal extension of July 4th, taking for granted the world share the US view of the 'tyranny and oppression' from which they originally saved themselves from the Brits. Also, you didn't mention U-571 or War of the Worlds?

But I'm glad no-one so far is seeing what I'm saying as 'American-bashing' because it certainly isn't meant to be. The relevance to the thread is that these things go some way towards explaining why people in other countries suspect the USA regard them as inferior, and that in turn can explain why there's a tendency for some non-Americans to seize on some really quite suspect stereotypes in order to justify a resentment which is perhaps at heart much simpler.


----------



## don maico

I read somewhere that the number of Brits prepared to travel to Florida for their holidays has dropped because of perceived mistreatement by US immigration officials. As so many have travelled in the post this surely must be a cause for concern to, if nothing else, the holiday industry there particularly when the exchange rate is so beneficial to us.
Personally I have never had any problems either at Newark or JFK but those accounts above are very dismaying. Are we not meant to be America's closest allies?


----------



## djchak

Hmm, that's old news...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15590942/

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/10692.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9d3b32bc-bfe8-11d9-b376-00000e2511c8.html

QUOTE:


"The problem is that since September 11, this country has viewed visitors more as a threat than an opportunity," Freeman said. "The entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is keeping foreign visitors away.Unless Congress understands there is a problem, nothing will be done ... though it wouldn't take much to make a change"


----------



## jabogitlu

You might be right that the behavior of the airport personnel as described would upset many, if not most, Americans.  But as someone else said, this isn't an issue because those in power don't bring it up.  And at least where I live, the vast majority of people _don't_ do any flying, whether they're poor, or whether they just never have any need to do any large amount of traveling.  So this is an issue that the general public is somewhat blind to.

But in no way should it be taken as a meter of what everyday Americans are like.  Back when I lived in my hometown - in deepwater Appalachia - we had some visitors from Norway or Sweden, I forget, who came and camped in the Cherokee National Park for a while.  They were looked upon as an item of friendly curiosity and were welcomed into people's homes and to events like bluegrass singings (I can only imagine what they thought!).

So really, I think that most Americans, while a little bit ignorant of multiculturalism, are very open to it and to people from other countries.

Now if we could only get ourselves to understand that Canada is *not* a mass of frozen tundra where everyone wears parkas...


----------



## cuchuflete

jabogitlu said:


> Now if we could only get ourselves to understand that Canada is *not* a mass of frozen tundra where everyone wears parkas...


 No, that's Maine and Minnesota you are thinking of.
The Canadians got central heating decades ago.


----------



## rob ander

To louisa,thank you for your posts they giving me things to think about.About the movie "indepèndance day" I only saw 15 minutes of it,thinking it was geared towards children.   Perhaps it be good to hear from someone from UK who has traveled via canadian airports and see if they noticed a difference.


----------



## maxiogee

We Irish get pre-checked by US immigration in Ireland before boarding. It's a bit of a cheek, but it does seem to generate less ill-will from the Irish towards these officials than it would appear others have mention of.
I found no problems when we went to the US about four years ago, and our two-years-ago trip to Canada went well also.
Maybe people just like me!


----------



## LouisaB

rob ander said:


> To louisa,thank you for your posts they giving me things to think about.About the movie "indepèndance day" I only saw 15 minutes of it,thinking it was geared towards children. Perhaps it be good to hear from someone from UK who has traveled via canadian airports and see if they noticed a difference.


 
Hi, rob,

I've only flown twice into Canada (Toronto Pearson), but I found it a perfectly normal, friendly airport. Security was tight, but that's just how it has to be everywhere these days. It was certainly a very different experience from the USA.

Louisa


----------



## SFO

maxiogee said:


> Well you see, now you've just proved the American-bashers point!
> *Only* an American would think that bringing a shotgun to church is 'normal'....


But, but, they told me it was a shotgun wedding.  I thought to be polite I should bring my shotgun.  Was I mistaken?  

John


----------



## Victoria32

LouisaB said:


> If 'Independence Day' had been made in the UK, and the script merely transposed to England, it would have been laughed out of cinemas here as jingoistic, self-glorifying rubbbish. I actually watched this film in LA, in the company of intelligent, well-educated American television executives, and _none of them saw anything odd about it at all._ I was really shaken by that. I remember sitting in the dark of that cinema, and thinking never mind the aliens on the screen, who are these people I'm sitting with, who think this is OK?
> 
> Imagine if an English made-film had to have a line like 'there's a space ship threatening the capital of America', because the executives believed the audiences wouldn't otherwise know where it was. Imagine an English-made film which rewrote history to have the Brits take Iwo Jima in WWII, because British audiences wouldn't be interested otherwise (just think of U-571 for starters). Imagine a great American sci-fi novel which an English film-company had to reset from Washington to London, because otherwise British audiences wouldn't care what happened to the people (think War Of The Worlds). These are all decisions made by film executives, and it's unfair to blame individual Americans for them, but they're based on what American audiences will commercially accept. If this _did _happen in the UK, I'd be ashamed. I certainly wouldn't blame other countries for bashing us, because we'd thoroughly deserve it.
> Louisa


Movies are one of my pet peeves! That Mel Gibson vehicle '_The Patriot_' is a good example, and we had quite a discussion going on another board about _Blackhawk Down_ when it came out... 

My father came from Liverpool, and he died in 1974, long before some of the worst offending films came out - but I hate to think of how angry he would have got! The TV programme he loathed and abominated the most was _Hogan's Heroes_, and I have never watched it or allowed my children to do so (when they were young enough to be guided by me on such matters.) Given his World War 2 experiences and the family he lost, he had every right to be upset at a TV show that portrayed the British as being either cowards or villains, especially in the context of a POW camp that had nationalities mixed and an American in charge of all the others! (It didn't happen that way.) Thanks to movies, I have heard of NZ children who think that the Allied powers were Australia, New Zealand and the USA against the Axis powers: Germany, Britain and Japan!  Admittedly no American movie has ever said that, but if that's the impression kids pick up, that's bad! 


Vicky


----------



## Setwale_Charm

There has been a rather venomous statement by the British comedian John Cleese (whom I otherwise quite like) on the net. It is called BRITAIN IS REPOSSESSING THE U.S.A. 

A Message from John Cleese to the citizens of the United States of America :


----------



## ElaineG

I was once taken into a small room at the Calgary Airport and detained for 4 hours because the Canadian immigration officers found it suspicious that I was... wait for it.... a young attractive woman travelling alone.   The lewd and snide questions about why I might want to come in Canada on vacation were done by a tag team of three.  

I have been repeatedly patted down by male security officers in European airports.  Here at least you always get a woman.

When I lived in the UK, my luggage and person was repeatedly micro-searched after I would routinely admit to the airport personnel that my roommate was Irish.  (They would grill me every time I went home or came back to see if I was working illegally, and the Irish roommate invariably came up).  (This was 15 years ago).  

Nearly every time I transit through Rome, I miss my connection waiting on the line to go through passport control.  

Airports suck.  The only place I've been where I've found the process friendly and efficient is Frankfurt.  I make a point of flying Lufthansa whenever I can.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Elaine, I am not sure how your post relates to the thread topic but I guess that bunch of idiotic occurences can be found about any country.


----------



## ElaineG

Setwale_Charm said:


> Elaine, I am not sure how your post relates to the thread topic but I guess that bunch of idiotic occurences can be found about any country.


 
Well, I'm not sure how it relates either.  But I find the idea that American airports are particularly gruesome not reflective of my experience.  I don't know how to respond to that by remaining on topic.


----------



## cuchuflete

Victoria32 said:
			
		

> I have heard of NZ children who think that the Allied powers were Australia, New Zealand and the USA against the Axis powers: Germany, Britain and Japan!


So now you know what it feels like to be aligned with the bad guys, eh?


Louisa was not "American bashing".  However, when people recount a series of experiences—unpleasant ones—tied to a country, it often leads others to join in, and tell of their own particular experience in the same or another country.  Soon enough we have a growing mob mentality, and yet another pernicious stereotype.   

About 50 million foreign citizens enter the US each year.  I don't doubt that many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, have bad, and needless, experiences with border control.  For those people and for others who witness it, Americans as well as citizens of other places, this is painful.   I also don't doubt that tens of millions have no such difficulties.

Read threads in this forum.  There has been lots of French bashing too.   A few personal anecdotes are related. Negative.  Those who have never been to France, or Country X, but are predisposed to dislike it, find further evidence that their prejudices—"viewpoints" in their own minds—are correct.

I trust the judgment of most people in this thread, and many in this forum, to distinguish between legitimate criticism of problems, and painting an entire nation with a broad brush.
Elsewhere, it's a problem.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> So now you know what it feels like to be aligned with the bad guys, eh?
> 
> 
> Louisa was not "American bashing". However, when people recount a series of experiences—unpleasant ones—tied to a country, it often leads others to join in, and tell of their own particular experience in the same or another country. Soon enough we have a growing mob mentality, and yet another pernicious stereotype.
> 
> About 50 million foreign citizens enter the US each year. I don't doubt that many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, have bad, and needless, experiences with border control. For those people and for others who witness it, Americans as well as citizens of other places, this is painful. I also don't doubt that tens of millions have no such difficulties.
> 
> Read threads in this forum. There has been lots of French bashing too. A few personal anecdotes are related. Negative. Those who have never been to France, or Country X, but are predisposed to dislike it, find further evidence that their prejudices—"viewpoints" in their own minds—are correct.
> 
> I trust the judgment of most people in this thread, and many in this forum, to distinguish between legitimate criticism of problems, and painting an entire nation with a broad brush.
> Elsewhere, it's a problem.


 

 That is why it is far more effective to analyse the bulk of statistic at least which exposes the trend and the general inclinations rather that cite individual cases. Because if everybody starts talking about things they have come across by dint of fate...


----------



## Victoria32

Setwale_Charm said:


> There has been a rather venomous statement by the British comedian John Cleese (whom I otherwise quite like) on the net. It is called BRITAIN IS REPOSSESSING THE U.S.A.
> 
> A Message from John Cleese to the citizens of the United States of America :


Maybe it's a matter of perception but I found that hilarious! (According to Snopes.com it wasn't John Cleese and there is an American rejoinder to it, which is why it's funny... 


cuchuflete said:


> So now you know what it feels like to be aligned with the bad guys, eh?


I am sorry, I find that extremely unfunny. Considering how many English people died in WW2 (including my very young Uncle) it's anything but amusing to be assumed to have been on the opposite side to what was really the case! 

I hate to think of the false and idiotic assumptions that will be made when the last of my parents' generation (they were born in 1918 and 1919, and married late in life) is dead. I know WW2 firsthand from their accounts although I was born well after it - my children know from me but the accounts I give are second-hand and their children will have these stories third-hand. It was a classmate of my younger son, who first revealed to our family the depth of appalling ignorance that learning history from the big or the little screen has led to. 

Vicky


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Victoria32 said:


> Maybe it's a matter of perception but I found that hilarious! (According to Snopes.com it wasn't John Cleese and there is an American rejoinder to it, which is why it's funny...


 

Well, I found it funny too but couldn`t help thinking that somebody more sensitive might see a bit of hidden unkindness there. 

  Victoria, I think we should learn to take everything connected with WWII easier. There are no BAD guys, the war is bad in itself and every nation has something of the kind in its record.


----------



## ireney

I wouldn't call the letter of Cleese "bashing", not considering his style. I actually found it very funny. And a guy who is sensitive but also has a sense of humour will find it funny I'm sure.

I also don't think kids can actually think that GB was with the Axis power! Yes, it's usually the Americans who do all the work that requires bravery and so on and so forth and the English (Scots sometimes are spared that "fate") are all for following the rules and have a swallowed a ramrod and so on an so forth (and at least they are there aren't they? Other nationalities are not even there).
I can't recall any movies where the English were the cowards though. They just weren't the heroic, brilliant, innovative and all around good American guys. 
Unless of course the kids got confused from the old Hollywood movies where all the Germans speak invariably with an RP British accent 

I don't consider relating your bad experience in an airport is bashing either but perhaps we should be a bit more careful . It seems that there is a general problem in the American airports yes. But on the other hand I take care NOT to fly via Germany because I did had some bad experiences (I don't know, they see "Greece" and go all suspicious? I surely hope not  )

American bashing is for example when my uncle (as many others) blames the US for the Greek junta of 1967- 74. American bashing is  the "you Americans" (although "you Americans and your measurement system" is not bashing, just sheer frustration  )


----------



## Mate

djchak said:


> So, what should they understand about how "the rest" views them?


I will try to give an example about something I assume you already know. 

It is a very long story made as short as possible.

Me and my dog are taking a walk through the park on Sunday. Peacemeaker is a big, powerful, fierce, well fed, better trained and very intimidating Rottweiler. 

Few years ago Peacemaker became a natural leader: no other dog in town would dare to defy its leadership. Even strong men feel the same just by watching it. 
Despite all this, the beast keeps loyal to its master: there is no doubt about it.

Suddenly and out of the blue appears this spoiled, bad mannered, poor 9 year old kid running like crazy. He is mad at everything and everyone. His very poor parents can no longer control him and they do not seem to care about that fact.

Blinded in his own sweat the boy strikes me with his forehead right where it hurts the most. Ouch!

Folded in two I fall leaving the beast unleashed. 
Feeling that I have been attacked Peacemaker goes after the kid and tears off one of his hands: nasty thing to watch indeed. After that he bites deeply on both his legs leaving the poor spoiled child terribly hurt.

I´m very angry and mad as well. I fear that my dog will be taken to the pound meaning that I´ll never see my best friend alive. 
So I grab Peacemeker's leash and run after the poor bastards that I hold fully responsible for causing so much trouble to us. 

Having followed the poor bastards until they arrive to their even poorer home both me and my fierce, loyal, unbeatable, trained-to-kill dog, prepare for vengeance. 

Full of rage we beat the s**t out of all the inhabitants of the house. We break everything at sight. 
We do not care about what their neighbours yell. We care neither about the strong opinions thrown to us by our own friends and neighbours. 

We kill and destroy everyone and everything at sight just because we can.

Of course this is an oversimplification or even worse, a misrepresentation of _real life_(?). 

Even so I believe it could help to figure out the answer to your question: _"So,_ _what should they understand about how "the rest" views them?"_

Cheers - Mate


----------



## Victoria32

Setwale_Charm said:


> Victoria, I think we should learn to take everything connected with WWII easier. There are no BAD guys, the war is bad in itself and every nation has something of the kind in its record.


You are right of course - but it is hard for me to see it that way... You would have to understand the profound effect WW2 had on my family and even some of my friends whose relatives had been killed... 


ireney said:


> I also don't think kids can actually think that GB was with the Axis power! Yes, it's usually the Americans who do all the work that requires bravery and so on and so forth and the English (Scots sometimes are spared that "fate") are all for following the rules and have a swallowed a ramrod and so on an so forth (and at least they are there aren't they? Other nationalities are not even there).
> I can't recall any movies where the English were the cowards though. They just weren't the heroic, brilliant, innovative and all around good American guys.


 That comment was about _Hogan's Heroe_s - and then there are films like Gibson's The Patriot - filled with actual lies!


----------



## ireney

Ah! Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought the "Thanks to movies, I have heard of NZ children who think that the Allied powers were Australia, New Zealand and the USA against the Axis powers: Germany, Britain and Japan!  Admittedly no American movie has ever said that, but if that's the impression kids pick up, that's bad!" was the concluding phrase of the paragraph. Whoops!

Anyway, the only solution is to tell kids about the "one bullet-ten _Indians_" etc and have them check  a history book afterwards (or they will believe that after the dead of M.Aurelius democracy was _reinstated_ in Rome and I sure hope they don't watch "300" is all I'm going to say about that film from a historical point of view  )


----------



## djchak

Ok...

I think some people around the world should not take American entertainment so seriously.....

Did the Americans flip out when Turkey's number one film was "Valley of the wolves"? No. Whatever the plot was, it's just a silly action flick.

And after the comparison of my country as an "intimidating Rottweiler".....
I really don't know what to say.

What I learned from this thread......American airports stink. Well, actually , I agree with Elaine. Most airports stink, and you can get questioned for anything. There needs to be some sort of "courtesy standard" worldwide.


----------



## rob ander

probably the only war movie that came close out of hollywood was "the great escapè" 76 men escaping prison camp was true.  70 recaptured was true. 6 getting away was true.50 executed by gestapo was true.however there were ficticous people in the movie,like Steve McQueen's character,there never was a guying stealing motor cycles and making maps.I don't know why but the writers of the movie decided to change the real hero of stories name from Roger Bushwell to Roger Bartlett


----------



## Mate

djchak said:


> And after the comparison of my country as an "intimidating Rottweiler".....
> I really don't know what to say.


No, no, please do not misunderstand me again: on this grotesque parody Peacemaker, the "intimidating Rottwailer" represents the US Army . The US Government is represented by a humble servant.

Mateamargo


----------



## LouisaB

djchak said:


> I think some people around the world should not take American entertainment so seriously.....Did the Americans flip out when Turkey's number one film was "Valley of the wolves"? No. Whatever the plot was, it's just a silly action flick.


 
I don't think anyone's taking these films seriously! But surely it's legitimate to consider the regular entertainment output of a country to be in some ways representative of what that country likes to watch, and therefore considers acceptable? 'Valley of the wolves' is a very good example. I don't need to take the film seriously to draw the conclusion that at that time Turkey as a country was feeling very hostile to the US. No-one needs to 'flip out', but we can acknowledge the fact, can't we? In the same way, when people from other countries see the output of the USA containing attempts to rewrite history to glorify their own role in it at the expense of other nations, isn't it legitimate to say _the people who make these films believe that Americans enjoy seeing things like that? _It would be totally wrong to blame individual Americans for that, but it would surely be legitimate to point out that these things foster a world-view of America as a country that looks down on others as inferior and less important than itself. And given such a world-view, surely no-one would be surprised to find other nations resentful of the US as a result?

As I've said, the English have done their fair share of this in the even quite recent past. There are bits of 'The Battle of Britain' that make me cringe. But I don't have a problem admitting that - why would I? If I couldn't admit it, wouldn't it look as if I thought it was an acceptable way to portray other nations? Well, I don't. Why is it so hard for you, a US citizen, to admit it's possible the US might also produce crass and insulting films, and that other people might be less keen on your country as a result?



> What I learned from this thread......American airports stink. Well, actually , I agree with Elaine. Most airports stink, and you can get questioned for anything. There needs to be some sort of "courtesy standard" worldwide.


 
I'm sorry, I seem to be having real difficulty making myself clear here. I've tried to say several times that _my problem is not with security._ Post 9-11, there _has_ to be tight security, tough questions have to be asked, and what kind of egomaniac would want to be exempt from that? My problem is with _the bullying behaviour of immigration staff towards non-US citizens._ Now, it may be there _is_ a similar problem in another country (though nobody has yet said so). If there is, I'd like to know about it. It's also true that I have written from my own personal experience (though that is actually 'fact' for me, because I know I'm not making it up). However, from what I've said, you can see the opinion of the British Foreign Office and the official at Gatwick Airport is that there _is_ a problem unique to the USA - and surely we shouldn't dismiss the opinion of professionals? From the links you posted yourself, it's clear even professional bodies in the US acknowledge there's a problem. So why is it so hard to admit, without trying to bury it in the general 'All airports stink'? If a guest in my country tells me he's been a victim of a racist incident, I'm concerned and angry, ashamed my country has let itself down, and do what I can to help, and make them feel better. What I do not say is 'So? It happens everywhere'.

I wish I'd never entered this thread now. I've been an Americophile (is there such a word, or is it written differently?) for most of my life. When I've encountered problems of the kind I've mentioned, I've always been able to tell myself that real, decent, individual Americans probably don't even _know_ the problem exists. After all, how could they? The one person who definitely doesn't know the experience of being a non-national in the US is a national in the US. I've told you how I clung onto that image of the American national who was as disgusted as I was by what he was seeing.

But it's starting to fade now. Your post about the news of Brits finding immigration so tough they're starting to avoid the US was headed 'This is old news'. You make it sound as if ordinary Americans _do_ know about these things - and don't care. I still struggle to believe this. Cuchuflete's posts remind me of how I've always seen Americans until now - fair, reasonable, open-minded, and prepared to resist injustice if the facts warrant it. Please tell me I'm right to go on believing this.

Louisa


----------



## timpeac

LouisaB said:


> Now, it may be there _is_ a similar problem in another country (though nobody has yet said so).


I haven't seen anything direct, but in the last couple of years there was a documentary set in an airport, I forget which, and it focussed on the immigration guys there. There was one disgusting episode where a French Canadian was coming through going to Bournemouth. Only he couldn't say it right (particularly the final "th") and this b#st*rd of an immigration officer kept making him repeat it again and again although he patently couldn't get it right. I was horrified, and if I remember correctly, I think it made headlines with people demanding explanations of this behaviour. I think the officer was fairly sure he was coming through for work on a tourist visa, but that's no excuse for bullying.

On coming through Heathrow the other day - I normally go to Gatwick - I was amazed to see that at passport control there were about 12 desks for non-EU and about 2 for EU. The EU queue was much longer - although it did go down much quicker, pretty much evening things out.

Just to add to what we've all been saying - that there are swings and roundabouts, ups and downs etc in all countries, I have seen many people crying in French préfectures as they try to cope with the huge amount of red tape trying to live-work in France brings if you're not born there. I've seen equally cruel behaviour in those establishments that I and others have described above in the USA, UK and elsewhere.


----------



## LouisaB

timpeac said:


> I haven't seen anything direct, but in the last couple of years there was a documentary set in an airport, I forget which, and it focussed on the immigration guys there. There was one disgusting episode where a French Canadian was coming through going to Bournemouth. Only he couldn't say it right (particularly the final "th") and this b#st*rd of an immigration officer kept making him repeat it again and again although he patently couldn't get it right. I was horrified, and if I remember correctly, I think it made headlines with people demanding explanations of this behaviour. I think the officer was fairly sure he was coming through for work on a tourist visa, but that's no excuse for bullying.


 
No, it's not. That's disgusting and racist. The programme would have been 'Airport', a British-made documentary series, and I'm glad they had the decency to expose this. In the UK, we really do want to _know_ if this kind of thing is going on in our name, and I'm glad to see it made headlines. That would reflect the reaction of ordinary British people finding out about something like this. I wouldn't mind a small bet that the officer concerned is no longer employed....

Do you think a US citizen would react in this outraged way to news their country's airports treated people like this?  



> On coming through Heathrow the other day - I normally go to Gatwick - I was amazed to see that at passport control there were about 12 desks for non-EU and about 2 for EU. The EU queue was much longer - although it did go down much quicker, pretty much evening things out.


 
Typical of the UK at the moment, to give greater courtesy to 'outsiders' than our own folk! But there's a logic to it: people from outside the EU will take longer to 'process' in an EU country - so you give them more desks. I wish US immigration at Los Angeles were able to work that one out...



> Just to add to what we've all been saying - that there are swings and roundabouts, ups and downs etc in all countries, I have seen many people crying in French préfectures as they try to cope with the huge amount of red tape trying to live-work in France brings if you're not born there. I've seen equally cruel behaviour in those establishments that I and others have described above in the USA, UK and elsewhere.


 
There are indeed swings and roundabouts in all countries, and good and bad individials of all nationalities. But when so many nations resent one particular country that it leads to something called 'American-bashing', it's only natural for that one country to wonder why it's having that effect on others. Indeed, one would have to be very self-satisfied indeed _not_ to wonder if it were possible one's own country might just conceivably be doing something that might cause it, even without one's own knowledge or complicity. Of course, one could just say that everyone not in the US are all evil racists to pick on it in this way - that would cover it, wouldn't it?


----------



## jabogitlu

> Do you think a US citizen would react in this outraged way to news their country's airports treated people like this?


Of course, we're not animals.

I think you're all being a touch too sensitive about this! In the end it doesn't come down to being American, or Canadian, or English, or Russian - it comes down to being human.  And in every society, you're going to have *humans* that don't give a damn and others that react with outright horror at any maljustices being propped up by undereducated security guards (which are probably a small percent of the security guard population).


----------



## LouisaB

jabogitlu said:


> Of course, we're not animals.


 
That's what I thought too - that American nationals would be shocked to hear of our experiences. But this doesn't _sound_ much like outrage to me:



> I think you're all being a touch too sensitive about this! In the end it doesn't come down to being American, or Canadian, or English, or Russian - it comes down to being human. And in every society, you're going to have *humans* that don't give a damn and others that react with outright horror at any maljustices being propped up by undereducated security guards (which are probably a small percent of the security guard population).


 
Several US natives have taken part in this discussion - and not _one_ has responded with outrage, let alone shown any sign of wanting to demand explanations, or do anything about it. It isn't a case of my opinion (or yours) on how US citizens would react any more. Read the thread, and see for yourself.

And I hate to mention it, but I think I have said a few times now that _I do not have a problem with security._ It feels as if no-one's listening - or at least, not hearing.

I have to unsubscribe now. I have a bad habit of trying to bring an open mind to a debate, so that I can actually change my mind by the end of it, and this is happening here, now. I began reading this thread as an Americophile (I'm sorry - I really do _not_ know the correct form of this word, and can't find it in my dictionary). I am becoming more -phobic with every post I read. If somebody had told me it was possible to tell the citizens of a country about racist (and human-rights) abuses being perpetrated in their name, and that they would respond with such complacency, I would never have believed it. Never.

Still, at least the discussion has served the purpose of answering the original question beyond doubt -

Definition of excessive humility: 'Believing our virtues common to everyone, and our vices peculiar to ourselves'.

Definition of excessive arrogance: Believing _our vices common to everyone,_ and our virtues peculiar to ourselves'.

As I believe the AE expression has it - Go Figure.

Obviously I cannot with integrity remain on the forum after this, but I would like to say a genuine and heartfelt 'thank you' to everyone at Word Reference for their help with my numerous stupid queries, for their patience with my impossibly long posts, and for some lively and very instructive debates. I have learned a great deal here, and if in the end I have learned rather more than I wanted, then that's nobody's fault but my own.


----------



## djchak

timpeac said:


> I
> 
> Just to add to what we've all been saying - that there are swings and roundabouts, ups and downs etc in all countries, I have seen many people crying in French préfectures as they try to cope with the huge amount of red tape trying to live-work in France brings if you're not born there. I've seen equally cruel behaviour in those establishments that I and others have described above in the USA, UK and elsewhere.



Thank you for saying it better than I could.

Louisa, my only real point is that entertainment is bound to have a cultural bias...and the "Americans" are far from the worst, IMHO. Independance day is tame compared to Valley of the Wolves....they can both be silly action flicks, but either you dismiss them as that, or give them merit as an artistic statement.

I won't accuse you of being too "sensitive" or what have you. I have my opinions, I am open to the (respectful, hopefully) opinions of others. They might take what I say the wrong way, or vice versa. The fact is each of our countries see things through a different cultural lense. Many British people dislike the previous escapades of "Imperial Britain", and view certain things as jingoistic nationalism...where as other cultures would say "big deal", and not think anything of it. The Turkish film I mentioned has scenes in it where Jewish- American doctors take Iraqi prisoners and kill them just to harvest and sell their organs....to the US, Israel and Britain.

This is what they expect, and no suprise, it's a BIG hit.
 (to the people that pay to see these movies in Turkey and other countries)

That's the cultural lense they see us in. That's a big factor. I'm just trying to point it out.

If i'm in the wrong, go ahead and tell me why.

And maybe what your seeing in opinions on airports isn't so much indifference, but exasperation, acceptance, cynicism, sarcasm...but those things are hard to convey sometimes in written posts. Little subtleties...


----------



## jabogitlu

> And I hate to mention it, but I think I have said a few times now that _I do not have a problem with security._ It feels as if no-one's listening - or at least, not hearing.



I think it's more like, "no one's disputing."  I don't see how anyone's challenging you on this. So... why would we mention it?

Maybe it's that we as Americans are so used to this kind of crap (bad treatment of internationals) that we have been desensitized. Or maybe realize that little can be done about it unless it's wrapped up in a huge lawsuit by someone "of clout" or else in a presidential election debate point.  I should stop here because I'm close to becoming t hat 'American Basher' that we're discussing, but... trust me, Louisa. We hear you. What would you like for us to do about it? Drive to the airport and pester the guards?  Write to our local paper?


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Victoria32 said:


> Maybe it's a matter of perception but I found that hilarious! (According to Snopes.com it wasn't John Cleese and there is an American rejoinder to it, which is why it's funny...


 
A slightly off-top question to the foreros from the States: so can I count on Americans taking it with humour if I want to forward that to my American friends?


----------



## cuchuflete

If they are humorless drones, they won't like it. Otherwise, they'll have a good laugh.


----------



## don maico

LouisaB said:


> That's what I thought too - that American nationals would be shocked to hear of our experiences. But this doesn't _sound_ much like outrage to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Several US natives have taken part in this discussion - and not _one_ has responded with outrage, let alone shown any sign of wanting to demand explanations, or do anything about it. It isn't a case of my opinion (or yours) on how US citizens would react any more. Read the thread, and see for yourself.
> 
> And I hate to mention it, but I think I have said a few times now that _I do not have a problem with security._ It feels as if no-one's listening - or at least, not hearing.
> 
> I have to unsubscribe now. I have a bad habit of trying to bring an open mind to a debate, so that I can actually change my mind by the end of it, and this is happening here, now. I began reading this thread as an Americophile (I'm sorry - I really do _not_ know the correct form of this word, and can't find it in my dictionary). I am becoming more -phobic with every post I read. If somebody had told me it was possible to tell the citizens of a country about racist (and human-rights) abuses being perpetrated in their name, and that they would respond with such complacency, I would never have believed it. Never.
> 
> Still, at least the discussion has served the purpose of answering the original question beyond doubt -
> 
> Definition of excessive humility: 'Believing our virtues common to everyone, and our vices peculiar to ourselves'.
> 
> Definition of excessive arrogance: Believing _our vices common to everyone,_ and our virtues peculiar to ourselves'.
> 
> As I believe the AE expression has it - Go Figure.
> 
> Obviously I cannot with integrity remain on the forum after this, but I would like to say a genuine and heartfelt 'thank you' to everyone at Word Reference for their help with my numerous stupid queries, for their patience with my impossibly long posts, and for some lively and very instructive debates. I have learned a great deal here, and if in the end I have learned rather more than I wanted, then that's nobody's fault but my own.



With respect I dont think you should throw your rattle out of the pram just because the Americans in here havent reacted with outraged indignation at your treatmant. Expressing your feelings is fine but i think they are probably quite surprised and some have expressed some sympathy. One must bear in mind that negative people exist everywhere and that for most travelling to the US, treatment is fine. I had no negatives myself and neither did my wife and she's been there several times/ In fact I can only think of two occasions when an American has been rude or hostile- one an air stewardess , the other two tousrists travelling in Argentina and treating the locals like slaves which annoyed me no end Then again ive seen the same from Brits in Europe and Spanish in Cuba.
Hope you return as your posts are interesting to read


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> With respect I dont think you should throw your rattle out of the pram just because the Americans in here havent reacted with outraged indignation at your treatmant.


I PM'd LouisaB with my reaction to her decision.
To suggest that she is throwing her rattle out of her pram is offensive and not in line with her restrained and dignified eposition of her feelings on the matter.
I would suggest that this is not a subject for public discussion and would suggest that those who wish to should contact LousiaB by PM,


----------



## ElaineG

Maybe I'm not reacting with outrage because I don't buy it: I have met kind and unkind U.S. immigration officials. Ones who want to chat, and ones who want to argue.

I have European and Filipino immigrant friends who have sung the praises of the efficiency at JFK compared to their home beauracracies. I was scolded just last week by Irish friends for not being on time to meet them -- as they cleared customs in 15 minutes, somethng I didn't think possible.

I have Middle Eastern immigrant friends, and American friends of Arab descent, who have received poor treatment -- and the subject of racial/ethnic profiling IS a subject of heated debate in this country, and most people do have an opinion, although we might not like the opinion they have, so it's not fair to accuse of indifference. The real issues, I'd say, we are aware of.

I recently read an article about how, with the soaring euro/pound, holiday spending by Europeans in NYC is expected to top records this year, for the xth year in a row, an article that was confirmed for me when I tried to do a bit of electronics shopping earlier this week and was the only American in the 40 minute queue. I can't set foot outside my building during lunch hour because of the hordes of tourists coming to see the Rock Center tree, and Times Square.

These are not just anecdotal experiences -- you can research the number of tourists that descend upon us each holiday season. 

Perhaps they are inconvenienced, some of them, at the airport, but obviously, the joys of a cheap currency outstrip that inconvenience.

LouisaB wants me to be outraged because she knows some people who have been unhappy at U.S. airport security.

But she didn't seem outraged that my luggage was torn apart routinely by British security guards just b/c I had an Irish roommate or that I was sexually harassed by the Canadian border police.

I'm not really outraged either -- I'll save my outrage for Guantanamo, Darfur, global warming, you name it, but not for inconvenienced visitors, who come in larger numbers every year.



> The number of international visitors to New York will probably rise to 7.3 million people this year, up from 4.8 million in 2003, according to the city's tourist board, NYC & Co.
> Virgin Atlantic Airways bookings to New York from London have risen at least 20 percent compared with this time last year.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601093&sid=atC94R7HXcyk&refer=home

Or this IHT headline from last week:



> For Europeans, America is now a vast shopping mall


 
Outrage! Outrage, I tell you! All these Brits and Europeans are coming here and snatching up my holiday bargains...


P.S. As for movies, what about Bond... James Bond? I saw the latest one last night, and thinking about this thread, I realize that my image of the Brits as having an unbeatable, high tech, incredibly efficient intelligence operation was entirely formed by James Bond, as all the British mystery shows make me think that Scotland Yard is infalliable. I keep having this reaction to the Litvenenko thing that the Brits are going to figure it all out lickety split, and then I realize I'm really thinking of Bond!


----------



## don maico

ElaineG said:


> Maybe I'm not reacting with outrage because I don't buy it: I have met kind and unkind U.S. immigration officials. Ones who want to chat, and ones who want to argue.
> 
> I have European and Filipino immigrant friends who have sung the praises of the efficiency at JFK compared to their home beauracracies. I was scolded just last week by Irish friends for not being on time to meet them -- as they cleared customs in 15 minutes, somethng I didn't think possible.
> 
> I have Middle Eastern immigrant friends, and American friends of Arab descent, who have received poor treatment -- and the subject of racial/ethnic profiling IS a subject of heated debate in this country, and most people do have an opinion, although we might not like the opinion they have, so it's not fair to accuse of indifference. The real issues, I'd say, we are aware of.
> 
> I recently read an article about how, with the soaring euro/pound, holiday spending by Europeans in NYC is expected to top records this year, for the xth year in a row, an article that was confirmed for me when I tried to do a bit of electronics shopping earlier this week and was the only American in the 40 minute queue. I can't set foot outside my building during lunch hour because of the hordes of tourists coming to see the Rock Center tree, and Times Square.
> 
> These are not just anecdotal experiences -- you can research the number of tourists that descend upon us each holiday season.
> 
> Perhaps they are inconvenienced, some of them, at the airport, but obviously, the joys of a cheap currency outstrip that inconvenience.
> 
> LouisaB wants me to be outraged because she knows some people who have been unhappy at U.S. airport security.
> 
> But she didn't seem outraged that my luggage was torn apart routinely by British security guards just b/c I had an Irish roommate or that I was sexually harassed by the Canadian border police.
> 
> I'm not really outraged either -- I'll save my outrage for Guantanamo, Darfur, global warming, you name it, but not for inconvenienced visitors, who come in larger numbers every year.
> 
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601093&sid=atC94R7HXcyk&refer=home
> 
> Or this IHT headline from last week:
> 
> 
> 
> Outrage! Outrage, I tell you! All these Brits and Europeans are coming here and snatching up my holiday bargains...
> 
> 
> P.S. As for movies, what about Bond... James Bond? I saw the latest one last night, and thinking about this thread, I realize that my image of the Brits as having an unbeatable, high tech, incredibly efficient intelligence operation was entirely formed by James Bond, as all the British mystery shows make me think that Scotland Yard is infalliable. I keep having this reaction to the Litvenenko thing that the Brits are going to figure it all out lickety split, and then I realize I'm really thinking of Bond!



There is absolutely no reason to suppose she was being economical with the truth over her experiences . She has every right to feel outraged. I would too and so would  anyone else . But she is ,I would think , very much in the minority. The vast majority have no problem whatsoever. Nevertheless those who are unfortunate enough, should be able to make the necessary complaints and the culprits should be disciplined. Harassment that leads to missing of flights IS appalling.
Frankly I do have some sympathy for her but i think its a shame she has felt the need to abandon ship.

nb As I mentioned in anopther post the number of touristrs from the Uk flyinfg to Orlando has dropped considerably due it would seem to negative eperiences at the airporty. Will the Florida authorities  take the necessary action?


----------



## JamesM

I don't understand why not getting the expected level of outrage from others about a personal experience would require someone to leave the forum. 

I've had a few unpleasant experiences over time when traveling. One of them that springs to mind was in Jamaica. I would not expect every Jamaican on this forum to line up with me and get infuriated because I once had a bad experience with Jamaican Customs, or to assume that Jamaican Customs had a vendetta for Americans because of my experience there.

One time, an entire group of 45 (unrelated) people were bumped off an Air New Zealand flight I was on from Heathrow because the computer lost all our reservations. We were to be stranded for four days until the next flight. Air New Zealand offered no other alternative and expected us to adjust our lives to a four-day delay. I don't think Air New Zealand, or all New Zealanders, are crass, unfeeling individuals because of that experience, nor do I think Heathrow is a horrible airport. The experience was difficult, made me miss work and left me up in the air (or rather, _not_ up in the air) with no way home, but that's sometimes what happens. To decide that all Air New Zealand employees are jerks, or that the British are uncaring individuals because no one from Heathrow rushed to my aid would seem peculiar.

I'm puzzled by the reaction, frankly, truly puzzled.

If many people on this forum had related the same experience and had said that it was a systemic problem recognized by all internationals traveling through the U.S., I would begin to question our methods. It's a huge change in mindset for us since 9/11, and we are still going through some knee-jerk reactions because of it. I think some of our officials are over-protective and over-zealous because we were so lax before. We're learning, but slowly. I appreciate the patience so many have shown us as we go through this learning curve.


----------



## ElaineG

> She has every right to feel outraged.


 
Of course she does.  But she doesn't have a right to demand that I feel outraged.  She may be upset that I'm not outraged, but I can decline to be outraged.  

That was the point of my post.  Not that I don't buy that she's upset, but that I don't buy that there's a humongous problem that I need to be outraged about.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

As a forera, I have to say that if everybody spent all their time expressing their outrage, I would have left the forum long ago.  Outrage is tedious.  As a rule, I find an inverse correlation between verbally expressed outrage and genuine and effective action. 

As a moderator:  It's time to put the topic of "obligation to be outraged" to bed and get on with the topic at hand.


----------



## don maico

ElaineG said:


> Of course she does.  But she doesn't have a right to demand that I feel outraged.  She may be upset that I'm not outraged, but I can decline to be outraged.
> 
> That was the point of my post.  Not that I don't buy that she's upset, but that I don't buy that there's a humongous problem that I need to be outraged about.


Ok fair enough!


----------



## Alxmrphi

The reason I am "not too fussy" on America, and I think I can speak (maybe more twisted into my understanding, but the general idea I believe is shared by many) ..

I have never seen a country with such gullible and stupid people, I think Britain likes to make fun of America a lot, especially on the TV, I think I have seen a disproportionate balance of America/ns through this, but it doesn't stop the support I see GWB getting, it doesn't stop the stupid bans with political correctness.

Ok, here's one, the banning of evolution to be taught as a science, how about that news report I saw not too long ago about a museum for the evangelicals where dinosaurs are next to Adam and Eve.

There is a lot of things that makes me cringe when I watch some things about what a lot of Americans seem to believe, and it really just makes my mouth fall open and go "Oh my god how can people actually believe this?"

This mentality annoys me, along with the attitudes that I have seen about "America being the best country in the world" with an idea that it is morally better than everywhere else and has the right to do things where it has absolutely no authority.

This is why America/ns piss me off sometimes.

(All views here are not reflected or pointed to every American, so before anyone gets on their patriotic high-horse, if you're even on this forum, then you're way out of the band of Americans I am refering to)


----------



## djchak

Alex_Murphy said:


> The reason I am "not too fussy" on America, and I think I can speak (maybe more twisted into my understanding, but the general idea I believe is shared by many) ..
> 
> I have never seen a country with such gullible and stupid people, I think Britain likes to make fun of America a lot, especially on the TV, I think I have seen a disproportionate balance of America/ns through this, but it doesn't stop the support I see GWB getting, it doesn't stop the stupid bans with political correctness.
> 
> Ok, here's one, the banning of evolution to be taught as a science, how about that news report I saw not too long ago about a museum for the evangelicals where dinosaurs are next to Adam and Eve.
> 
> There is a lot of things that makes me cringe when I watch some things about what a lot of Americans seem to believe, and it really just makes my mouth fall open and go "Oh my god how can people actually believe this?"
> 
> This mentality annoys me, along with the attitudes that I have seen about "America being the best country in the world" with an idea that it is morally better than everywhere else and has the right to do things where it has absolutely no authority.
> 
> This is why America/ns piss me off sometimes.
> 
> (All views here are not reflected or pointed to every American, so before anyone gets on their patriotic high-horse, if you're even on this forum, then you're way out of the band of Americans I am refering to)



Here's something to think about.

The U.S. has a fairly big media, with a reach around the world.
Americans are pretty critical of themselves, and each other.

The way this plays out is: I will be sitting in my home, seeing a report on CNN about some school board in a backward part of Kansas (which is not ALL that way) that decided to introduce "intelligent design" and think "wow, they must be kidding." Pundits will be arguing, and making extreme arguments about the issues....

The next day, it will be on the international news, and the views will be even more skewed....

We NEVER think about how what we put on the news will be viewed outside the states.


----------



## JamesM

I don't know that we are so much critical of ourselves, but our "news" media are focused on the sensational and the bizarre. We are a large country and what makes it in the news much of the time is more like "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" than any representation of typical life in the U.S., in my opinion.

We see some man who has attacked young men, cut them up into pieces and stored them in his refrigerator. How does this relate to anything that has happened within a thousand miles of me? We see a bizarre band of protestors from one small church of fifty members or so, cheering the deaths of soldiers as God's punishment on the U.S. for allowing gays in the military. This is ultimately bizarre. No one that I know of, outside of this small family-run church in Bumfuck, Nowhere, has ever entertained such a bizarre notion. Nevertheless, it gets national media attention over a period of days and is honored with analysis, background of the nutcase group, and questions about its effect on national policy. National Policy? Give me a break! Fifty people out of 300 million have some strange notion and they are considered worthy of consideration for affecting our national policy?

I don't know if it's the same in other countries, but in the U.S., the fastest way to being "flavor of the month" in the news media is to be as totally off-the-wall as you possibly can be. No wonder people get a weird view of our country. Our news coverage doesn't even have a tangential relationship to reality, in my opinion. I stopped watching TV news several years back, about the time that slow-speed chases on L.A. freeways were elevated to the rank of stories worth covering "live" and suspending all other programming for. How silly.


----------



## timpeac

I think Alex is right in that the huge media that the US has reporting on such a huge country gives us Brits lots of amunition to feel smug and superior, but I don't think most people would really believe that this is in any way indicative of the average American. After all we have programs here such as "eurotrash" which discuss all the bizarre weird and wonderful stuff going on across Europe (usually with a sexual slant) and what some German sausage maker may do in lycra on a Saturday night is no reflection on what I, as a fellow European, do.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Eurotrash, lol, what a weird show..
By no means do I/would I think it's a portrait of an average American, but the truth can not be denied that:

There are people in America with some stupid and worringly crazy views and actions, and it does seem to be pretty consistant, there's always something new that we're hearing about, and that *is* happening in America, not really (to my knowledge) to that extent in any other country.
So even if it's not a big proportion, it's still there.

I'm still amazed America puts up with people like Ann Coulter, she or anyone like her would never last in the UK.


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:


> Here's something to think about.
> 
> We NEVER think about how what we put on the news will be viewed outside the states.



Does anywhere think like that?
News is packaged for its local audience.
The concept that it will be taken up elsewhere is for the wire-services to worry about.

I can recall small local stories here in Ireland which made it almost all the way around the world on slow news weeks which made us cringe to see that they had been picked up. They were small stuff here, but when presented as "news from Ireland" on a TV station in Xyzland it looks as "the news from Ireland" - big difference. 

A "for instance" was an incident when I was in advertising. The main Irish TV station ran its main evening news bulletin at 9.00 pm every weekday. Friday night's news was always the highest rated bulletin of the week. For a season or two there was a "filler" series broadcast in the fifteen minutes prior to this bulletin of the main race from one of the greyhound racing stadia in Dublin. This was not a hugely popular show, but, as people were switching on, or switching over from other stations, in time for the news, they boosted the ratings for the show.
Now, news bulletins were not considered as 'programmes' for ratings purposes, and really popular programmes lasted too long and lost audience over their time-span - this made the greyhound programme the most 'watched' programme in Irish TV for those seasons. Hearty laughs around the world at 'the weird Irish'.


----------



## djchak

Alex_Murphy said:


> Eurotrash, lol, what a weird show..
> By no means do I/would I think it's a portrait of an average American, but the truth can not be denied that:
> 
> There are people in America with some stupid and worringly crazy views and actions, and it does seem to be pretty consistant, there's always something new that we're hearing about, and that *is* happening in America, not really (to my knowledge) to that extent in any other country.
> So even if it's not a big proportion, it's still there.
> 
> I'm still amazed America puts up with people like Ann Coulter, she or anyone like her would never last in the UK.



"conservative" or "liberal" , the media here loves to make money off of scandal......only instead of focusing on celebrities (brit tabloids), we focus on pudits like Anne Coulter vs. Micheal Moore. Polemics rule when it comes to getting audience numbers. That's why most people have tuned out.

Over 40% of americans didn't even bother to vote this year.


----------



## ElaineG

> I'm still amazed America puts up with people like Ann Coulter, she or anyone like her would never last in the UK.


 
Nope.  No right-wing nutters in the UK. Absolutely none.  Never heard of 'em. 



> The British National Party Executive's solution to this problem is to ban immediately, ALL MUSLIMS from flying out of (and in to) Britain until the security situation has been fully resolved.


 
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1078


----------



## Alxmrphi

Nick Griffin is so low down and so is the BNP, the media made a massive over-hype that IMHO backfired when people realised it was nowhere near "taking over government" or whatever their stupid headlines where.
The fact is they are all crazy, and only those crazy people support themselves etc.

Ann Coulter, gets bestsellers every like 2 years and book signings and a volume of obvious support, nowhere even a fraction of a scratch of anything like a daydream of what could happen to the BNP.

Yes we have nutters, and 99.9% of us recognise them as nutters, you have more nutters (obvious, ratio rule) but those nutters get a much HIGHER ratio of support in America, that lends itself to the arguement that what people put up with in the USA, wouldn't happen here, I hope I summed that up right.


----------



## ElaineG

Oh, I see, when they're British nutters, it's a function of media hype, but when they're American nutters, it's a function of reality.


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:


> Oh, I see, when they're British nutters, it's a function of media hype, but when they're American nutters, it's a function of reality.



Same difference! 
Isn't media-hype a reality of American life? (Or am I grossly generalising?)


----------



## Alxmrphi

Pretty much

...... lol only joking, all I was stating is unquestionable support in America, to a very questionable set of articles that just aren't true here.

When the guiness advert (evolution) was banned in some states in America, I remember lots of people talking about that, because that would be absolutely unthinkable here, would never happen, totally shocked us that even an advert like that would be assumed as against Christ and therefore banned.

There are some comparisons that do make out America to be, well, stupid in some cases (as I'm sure there are comparisons to be made about Brits in different circumstances) .. like let's say the NHS or the death penalty.. well, maybe not them.


----------



## ElaineG

> When the guiness advert (evolution) was banned in some states in America, I remember lots of people talking about that, because that would be absolutely unthinkable here, would never happen, totally shocked us that even an advert like that would be assumed as against Christ and therefore banned.


 
Alex, I think this a perfect example of maybe people overseas responding to their own media hype (The Guardian anyone?) in which America is evil.

I've seen the Guiness advertisement you mentioned all over the Internet.  I did a comprehensive news search on Nexis and could not find one reference to its being banned in any state in the U.S.  (such a ban would face federal pre-emption problems as well as constitutional problems, although advertisements of beer in general is limited to certain hours -- i.e., not during kiddie programs).

I suspect this "banning" is an urban myth.  But you were ready to believe it, weren't you, because it fits in with your media-fed preconceptions of the U.S.?


----------



## Alxmrphi

One hundred percent.


----------



## ElaineG

Alex_Murphy said:


> One hundred percent.


 
Well, if you go around believing things that are completely false, there's not much to be done about the issue.


----------



## invisibleu

ElaineG said:


> Oh, I see, when they're British nutters, it's a function of media hype, but when they're American nutters, it's a function of reality.


I think Alex is saying that the majority of far right-wing nutters in the UK are generally regarded as such by the majority of the public (look at the BNP's results nationwide in the 2005 general election) and the media, but in the USA you can be a far right-wing nutter and be part of the mainstream.


----------



## Sepia

I aggree, these people in the backlands of the US cannot be considered representative. 

But politicians who talk about themselves as "Christians" have had enough support from their people to entitle them to send out soldiers killing and kidnapping people who were never any threat to the American people. And they even claim that their god is on their side and that it is a "just war".

What religious BS is concerned, I think that is bad enough. 

I am not only talking about the current President of the US - after all he was only elected once. As we remember, he was appointed by court order the first time because there were problems counting the votes - something that most Europeans found incomprehensible. 

And what general ignorance about America and the rest of the world is concerned - here is something funny from Swedish television:

They wanted to find out how well known Sweden is to US-Americans and showed a number of people from the street a map of the world with no borders or names on them and told them to put theri finger on Sweden if they could find it. Of course they soon gave up - best answer was from somebody who confused Sweden with Switzerland - and told them to put their finger on the USA. About half of them chose the largest continent they could find and put their finger in the middle of Russia.

-------

I am not saying that these people are less intelligent than others but it surely leaves the impression that close to half of the US-Americans don't care about anything outside their own country, apart from the fact that they entitle their Presidents to send out soldiers killing people for no really good reason. 

And most of the US-Americans I personally know even share this view!


----------



## don maico

There is not a single uK paper that portrays the US as evil. Thats nonsense! There may be a few who are critical of certain aspects of American politics and most are highly critical of George Bush but to extend that to "US is evil" just isnt true.It seems more  case of if someone isnt 100 % for you then by definition they must be 100% against.
For the record there are many aspects of the US I like including many of its people I met ,much of its music and many of its movies. I enjoyed New York and Philadelphia and the little I've seen of the surrounding countyryside.Ive also enjopyed listening to some of the celebrities who've come over particularly those that dont mind being ribbed by Jonathan Ross.My wife has been more times than I have taking in part of the west and part of the south. She also took a two week riding holiday in Wyoming.
But I am critical of certain aspects including the :
Iraq adventure
Bush and his intransigence over global warming
The Neocons
the death penalty
the appalling regimes in some prisons
The gun culture
The tendency for some police and GIs to shoot too quickly and with too greater ferocity( I had that poor NY black guy in mind and the excessive treatment of Iraqui prisoners)
the huge gulf between rich and poor
no state funded  health care system
poor education for too many
and finally
Atlantic city is the pits
Oh and I dont like Donald Trump or the infatuation so many Americans have for him. Any guy who refuses to shake peoples hands on the grounds of "i dont know where they have been" is contemptible in my view

Does that mean i dislike America or think its evil ? No!
the US has been far more a force for good than evil but iT has made mistakes including slaughtering Tens of thousands of Vietnamese and never admitting it was wrong.Plus all its movies about that conflict( good as many were) dealt about it entirely from an American perspective. Anyone thought how The Viets might feel after having their country bombed to pieces?
I look forward to watching Clint Eastwards new movie

There is not  country I dislike but just like mine they have all have their positives and negatives. I could ramble on non stop about our negatives - empire, illtreatment of the Irish , first internment camps in South Africa, greed,belicosity, bombing of Dresden etc etc


----------



## Alxmrphi

Don maico, you make a LOT of sense, and you phrased my point of view in yours, but I could never make it without a massive bias looking slant, totally agree with you and the list of things to be critical about too.

You said no UK tabloid called America evil, I don't think they have an "America is evil" thing, but just a critical angle.
I absolutely fell in love with "The Mirror" when I saw this on the newspaper stands ( http://blog.fibrowalls.com/content/0411_dubya.jpg )


----------



## cuchuflete

I like the Mirror cover.  Did they do a similar one for the number of Italians who voted for the media monopolist?  Did they do one for Bush's British lackey?  How about Aznar, Chirac, and all those other exemplars of what is good and true and right in the world?  The US is a big, highly visible, easy target. Some of the criticisms are justified. Some display ignorance and laziness on the part of the critics.


----------



## maxiogee

Why did they call the voters dumb - surely 'dumb' was the horde who didn't vote for someone?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Blair : http://www.buzzmachine.com/pix/mirror0314.jpg

They love to tease Chirac, especially about the English food comment, and when we got the 2012 Olympics in London, and our media didn't like Silvio either.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Tony, as much as I would agree with you in any other situation regarding your statement, voting for Bush is worse than not voting, in this case, IMO


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> Blair : http://www.buzzmachine.com/pix/mirror0314.jpg
> 
> They love to tease Chirac, especially about the English food comment, and when we got the 2012 Olympics in London, and our media didn't like Silvio either.



Should we take this as proof that the British media is good at throwing mud and any and all targets?  Is that a reflection of intellectual depth, or just the ability to belabor (belabour?) the obvious?


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> Tony, as much as I would agree with you in any other situation regarding your statement, voting for Bush is worse than not voting, in this case, IMO



Don't be so psephologically naive.
If voting for X is dumb, it is worse to let him in, by abstaining from voting for his opponent. Better to have an opinion than have none! Don't forget that for many American voters Bush was perceived as the better choice. And they were more than likely right, but we'll never know. The problem was not on election day - the problem was when those electors who didn't like Bush did feck all to see that a decent candidate was chosen to oppose him - and *that* problem became to consolidate itself the day he was first elected!

The electorate is 20 —> Candidate X gets 7 votes : Candidate Y gets 6 votes.
7 dumb voters did nothing - when just 2 of them could have made a difference.


----------



## Alxmrphi

No cuchu, it just means that your question about "does it only single out the US?" isn't true, and I pointed out that they will be equally critical when called for (as you listed those people you did with a bit of distaste, and then when you find out The Mirror does, you summed it up by calling them negative)

All I'm saying, is it wasn't singling out GWB or America. British Newspaper will slag EVERYONE off lol.


----------



## djchak

don maico said:


> There is not a single uK paper that portrays the US as evil. Thats nonsense!



IMHO, the "Guardian" comes pretty close, although once in a while it throws in an article written by someone with reason and pragmatism.

Articles like these make us question sanity in the UK press.

This isn't som much about bashing foreign policy, as it is about using it as a stepping stone to bash the idea of America (the country) and Americans (the citizens).


----------



## Victoria32

Alex_Murphy said:


> I have never seen a country with such gullible and stupid people, I think Britain likes to make fun of America a lot, especially on the TV, I think I have seen a disproportionate balance of America/ns through this, but it doesn't stop the support I see GWB getting, it doesn't stop the stupid bans with political correctness.
> 
> Ok, here's one, the banning of evolution to be taught as a science, how about that news report I saw not too long ago about a museum for the evangelicals where dinosaurs are next to Adam and Eve.
> 
> There is a lot of things that makes me cringe when I watch some things about what a lot of Americans seem to believe, and it really just makes my mouth fall open and go "Oh my god how can people actually believe this?"
> 
> This mentality annoys me, along with the attitudes that I have seen about "America being the best country in the world" with an idea that it is morally better than everywhere else and has the right to do things where it has absolutely no authority.
> 
> This is why America/ns piss me off sometimes.
> 
> (All views here are not reflected or pointed to every American, so before anyone gets on their patriotic high-horse, if you're even on this forum, then you're way out of the band of Americans I am refering to)


A case in point - the episode of E.R we were watching last night, where Michael Gallant was killed - and the "Iraq is a disaster and the invasion should never have happened" view was put by a deeply unpopular character (Clemente, referred to as a 'wetback' by some other characters... xenophobia, anyone?) This was not good medical soap, it was rank, stinking propaganda! <spit> 


ElaineG said:


> Oh, I see, when they're British nutters, it's a function of media hype, but when they're American nutters, it's a function of reality.


Sadly, pretty much, as others have said.. 


Alex_Murphy said:


> You said no UK tabloid called America evil, I don't think they have an "America is evil" thing, but just a critical angle.
> I absolutely fell in love with "The Mirror" when I saw this on the newspaper stands ( http://blog.fibrowalls.com/content/0411_dubya.jpg )


I love that cover! We have it on our computer at home...
(I am reminded of a Time Magazine cover in the 1990s - with Clinton's face on the cover after he was elected for his second term, and a big headline "*How could they*?" and I thought hey, back up the media truck here (as Tim Allen would have said in_ Home Improvement_) "aren't American newsmagazines required to be (or pretend to be) non-partisan? (Myabe an American can clarify?)

Vicky


----------



## breezejv

What's goin on?


----------



## Alxmrphi

djchak....

I read that article, and the first two paragraphs shocked me, but as I read on, I really do understand and to an extend sympathise exactly with the author.

I mean especially with 

"When America speaks from its heart, it retreats into a language that none but its true-born citizens can begin to understand"

and especially:

"Like so many of the ideas America is going to war to defend, free speech is a nice thought that hasn't panned out in practice. The US may think of itself as a nation that nurtures debate but if that happens at all, it's only when there's nothing at stake. At this crucial moment in its history, it has eschewed the clamour of conflicting positions in favour of the voice it always returns to when its foundations are shaken. That voice is deeply dumb. Unable to engage with causality and contemptuous of attempts to do so, it explains what it sees in terms that bear no relation to reality."

I think he was extremely tasteless in his comments about not caring and feeling a "haha, you deserved that", totally uncalled for and almost non-human I do have to admit.

The logic underlying why HE HIMSELF AND NOT ME, chose to form such an agressive opinion of his own, was explained and I do hold a few of those thoughts about the American "government", which I sort of in a way see as a reflection of the conservative-right wing way of thinking.


----------



## ElaineG

> This was not good medical soap, it was rank, stinking propaganda! <spit>


 
Oh come on -- ER including the death of Gallant has been anti-Bush establishment propaganda from the very beginning. Remember how badly the military wives get together was depicted? I will not bore anyone on here with the details, especially as the show has gotten so lousy in recent seasons, but anyone who thinks that ER promotes anything other than a standard liberal agenda hasn't been paying attention. 




> Sadly, pretty much, as others have said..


 
I don't know what to do with that level of flippancy.

When completely false stories about America (the Guinness ad) are reported as truth in this thread, when liberal TV shows that have been at the forefront of critiquing American policy (taking outspoken stances on everything from gay rights to development policy) are seen as pro-war propaganda, there's nothing left to reason with, and I have to believe that I am dealing with rank prejudice, pure and simple.

If you think what you see in the media about America is more "true" or more "representative" than what you see about your own country, that's willful blindness.

I've never been to New Zealand, and don't know much about it. If I were going to go by what the media reports about it, I'd say it pretty much is a zero, other than nice scenery for hobbits to run around in and the scene of a horrendous racist genocide of a proud indigenous people that was even swifter, more brutal and more complete than the American equivalent. I'm sure there's more to it -- and I'll stay away from deriving my truths from TV shows and tabloids, until I can learn more about the situation.



> am reminded of a Time Magazine cover in the 1990s - with Clinton's face on the cover after he was elected for his second term, and a big headline "*How could they*?" and I thought hey, back up the media truck here (as Tim Allen would have said in_ Home Improvement_) "aren't American newsmagazines required to be (or pretend to be) non-partisan? (Myabe an American can clarify?)


 
Can you provide a cite or find any reference? That sounds apocryphal or taken out of context to me. Time Magazine _never_ came out as anti-Clinton in terms of who should be elected in 1996. 

Newsmagazines are under no obligation to be non-partisan. We have one of freest presses in the world (no cumbersome British libel laws), and we have newmagazines from every end of the spectrum -- the American Spectator and the National Review on the right, all the way to the Nation and the NY Review of Books on the extreme left. Time and Newsweek tend to be very centrist, with a liberal establishment tilt.

_Edit:  Here you can see all the Time magazine covers featuring either Clinton: http://www.time.com/time/searchresults?N=46&Ntk=NoBody&Nty=1&Ntx=mode%2Bmatchallpartial&Ntt=clinton.  No such cover as that described even remotely exists._

_This is the second time today that a bit of research has clarified that an anti-American "truth" reported on this thread was sheer fiction.  _

_I think something is emerging here ... people see, hear and believe what they want to about America, regardless of the "truth".  I expect this is especially easy if you've never lived or spent much time here._


----------



## Alxmrphi

Of course you're right Elaine, I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but it's not sensible to not believe ANYTHING or have an opinion on ANYTHING if you can't have first-hand experience.

What is reported to you, gives an impression on a place, it would be silly for me to only have thoughts and opinions on where I have grown up and no other place in the UK or country in the world.

If I hear things about let's say North Korea, I'm not going to "not" have any opinions just because I haven't been there.

We can't all know and have experienced everything so at times there will be, sometimes massive discrepencies with what is reported and actual reality.

But it's something we can't avoid doing, and is in our human nature to believe things that we're told (within reason) excluding special circumstances, we can't be everywhere at once.


----------



## ElaineG

> But it's something we can't avoid doing, and is in our human nature to believe things that we're told (within reason) excluding special circumstances, we can't be everywhere at once.


 
But you can check to the extent of your ability to see if something is true or not, before believing it or repeating.

You can make a point of educating yourself before allowing yourself to hold any prejudice. 

You can as rigorously question your own assumptions as you do of someone who you oppose. I.e., if you believe that your country tends to blow things like the threat posed by right-wing nutters out of proportion in the media, you can ask yourself if it's possible that that is happening elsewhere.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I do understand you but I just believe that living a life like that, where everything would have to be proven to you before it was believed, would be a wasted and paranoid life, at least for me.

If say I turn on BBC news and think to myself "Is this a lie?" "Is this a lie?" about every segment they show, well, imagine it! It's not practical, but before holding a strong prejudice I do think sensible, as you suggested.

For the majority of the time if I do oppose something passionately I will be on the net looking up proof, like sometimes I think to myself "If someone asks me why I hold this opinion, I want to be able to give them a list and detailed reason that is true and puts across why I feel as I do"

A talent I haven't *quite* yet mastered as you can see.


----------



## ElaineG

> I do understand you but I just believe that living a life like that, where everything would have to be proven to you before it was believed, would be a wasted and paranoid life, at least for me.


 
What you call wasted and paranoid, I call thoughtful and educated.  I don't mean doubt everything uselessly, but be prepared to back up your opinions with fact.  Read books about topics that interest you, from a variety of political perspectives.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> If say I turn on BBC news and think to myself "Is this a lie?" "Is this a lie?" about every segment they show, well, imagine it! It's not practical, but before holding a strong prejudice I do think sensible, as you suggested.



There are certain times when one needs to not ask "Is this a lie?", but rather "Why is someone telling me this?" 
This is an important question. 
More important, and certainly more susceptible to being accurately answered, than "Is this a lie?"


----------



## cuchuflete

Victoria32 said:


> A case in point - the episode of E.R we were watching last night, where Michael Gallant was killed - and the "Iraq is a disaster and the invasion should never have happened" view was put by a deeply unpopular character (Clemente, referred to as a 'wetback' by some other characters... xenophobia, anyone?) This was not good medical soap, it was *rank, stinking propaganda!* <spit>



Are the words in bold a good characterization of the post in which it appears?

I don't form my opinions of any country on the basis of soap operas, medically inspired or otherwise.  What a superficial way to arrive at a conclusion is that!

If you dislike a country, whether on the level of government policy or something broader, you will find "evidence" under any rock, whether it is there or not.  That is what "Bashing" is all about.  Thought is not required for bashing.


----------



## djchak

cuchuflete said:


> If you dislike a country, whether on the level of government policy or something broader, you will find "evidence" under any rock, whether it is there or not.  That is what "Bashing" is all about.  Thought is not required for bashing.



Hey, let's not let the facts get in the way. 

Alex:

"I think he was extremely tasteless in his comments about not caring and feeling a "haha, you deserved that", totally uncalled for and almost non-human I do have to admit."

It was a "She" in this case, and it is statements like that.... that make americans question what's gong on in some overseas (for us) newspapers.

Trust me, that article is nothing compared to some articles in other magazines.... like Stern in Germany.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Stern_news_article said:
			
		

> To me, these people are not representative of average Americans, but of typical German stereotypes of average Americans. In fact, most Americans are critical of both Bush and his opponents and see issues from many different angles. Most Americans are not as primitive or one-dimensional as many of the people in the gallery seem to be.



This article is bad?


----------



## djchak

Hey, judge for yourself. I might think the original article from stern is absolutely ridiculous in it's portrayal of Americans, while someone else might think it's the gospel truth.


----------



## Alxmrphi

But it is stating that we shouldn't listen to or believe stereotypes and America is full of people who are different and who have their own opinions and are not "one dimensional", how can that be perceived as a bad thing?


----------



## djchak

The link to the blog I posted..is talking about the original article in Stern. I am (trying to point out) the original article, not the re posting and english translation, and commentary of it.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ohhh with all the pictures showing a stereotype? I see.


----------



## PandaX

In regards to Europe, I have lived and traveled throughout the continent and in my opinion the increased anti-Americanism that you see today is a mixture of anti-Bush/anti-right, propaganda by politicians, media, and other elites, cultural differences, the end of the Cold War, and because of simple jealousy.

European politicians, the media, and other so-called elites are trying to build a federal Europe and one important way to motivate and convince Europeans of such a project is through anti-American sentiment. They know they can take advantage of a deep-seated anti-Americanism that has always existed throughout much of Europe, especially among the so-called Old Europe countries, and that will always exist, so long as America retains its lead and influence in so many areas, no matter what side of the political spectrum our president resides in. Bush, and Iraq, are just convenient excuses for them. 

When many Europeans say we have no problem with America or Americans, and that "its just your government," it is fair to be skeptical. A new government will not change the views of many Europeans and will not do anything to get rid or lessen that deep-seated anti-Americanism that has always existed. They will simply go on to criticize our culture and domestic issues that have nothing to do with them, as they typically do.

On the cultural side, I think Europeans tend to be more cynical, negative, and reserved, and are often offended by American confidence. Success based on that confidence is even harder to stand. They nurture a certain level of the tall poppy syndrome and much of that is rooted in history, in what existed and what no longer exists. Europeans often feel a certain level of superiority that today can no longer be proven or justified, whether in science, technology, medicine, military capabilities, etc, etc. 

It's getting late but those are some of my thoughts on this issue.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Dear me! I am tempted to ask whether there is any part of the world, apart from Europe, that would not have similar perceptions of the States??!! we all get what we deserve and are the victims of the stereotypes which we created ourselves. although, collectively, I might say.
And, frankly, I do believe that Bush had his part in it. I am not particularly anti-Bush myself since I think Clinton was the most appalling of them all. Think of that when the States (together with Europe) was bombing Belgrade - which was a far more appalling crime than the invasion into Irak, nobody in Europe said a word!! Where was their hypocritical love for democracy in 1999?


----------



## PandaX

Setwale_Charm said:


> Dear me! I am tempted to ask whether there is any part of the world, apart from Europe, that would not have similar perceptions of the States??!! we all get what we deserve and are the victims of the stereotypes which we created ourselves. although, collectively, I might say.
> 
> And, frankly, I do believe that Bush had his part in it. I am not particularly anti-Bush myself since I think Clinton was the most appalling of them all. Think of that when the States (together with Europe) was bombing Belgrade - which was a far more appalling crime than the invasion into Irak, nobody in Europe said a word!! Where was their hypocritical love for democracy in 1999?



No, we don't "all get what we deserve," some get more attention than others for some of the reasons I mentioned. 

European countries, especially Old Europe, are unique because they pretend to be our closest allies and yet often do more to encourage and spread anti-Americanism than some of our worst enemies. At least our worst enemies don't disguise themselves as friends and allies. 

I agree with you on Clinton. The man lied under oath and should have gone to prison.


----------



## TRG

I haven't been involved in this thread before and I've just this morning skimmed over all of the posts. I have some observations in way of catching up and some may be repeating what others have said, but there is an expression in politics which goes, "everything has been said, but not everyone has said it". It's my turn.

1. The US is in a unique position in the world which is the culimination of it's history. I'm not sure it's a position we would all embrace if we had a choice, but here we are, the preeminent economic and military power in the world of today. Some resentment, as Redisca pointed out, is natural and to be expected. It doesn't bother me, but it does bother many people and it is a phenomenon that feeds to people baser instincts.

2. Resentment of the US is not necessarily a recent phenonenon. I will cite a passage from the book, Postwar by Tony Judt. It is on p. 96.

"It is thus more than a little ironic that it was in France that the Marshall Plan faced the greatest popular criticism. In mid-1950 only one French adult in three acknowledged having even heard of the Marshall Plan and of these, 64 percent delcared it to be bad for their country." 

So here was the United states having helped liberate France and embarking on what can only be described as anvhumanitarian gesture and being either ignored or resented. If we weren't well thought of then we certainly can't expect to be now. 

3. Stereotyping is not a bad thing. It helps to understand the world. However, if you are unable to deal with people as individuals instead of a member of some perceived class, then you are probably just a bigot.

4. Complaints about Americans not learning foreign languages are just so much cultural snobbery. Europeans have the benefit, if in fact it is one, of needing to learn different languages. I studied spanish in high school, deutsch in college, and the reason I'm at this forum is that lately I've been trying to learn french. Alas, I could not carry on a conversation in any of these because I've never really been in a position to use the language enough to develop any fluency. As for not using or not attempting to use the language of the country they may be visiting, I'm sure many people are reluctant to do so for fear of embarrassment and the fact that they were very likely told that everyone would speak english.

5. I cannot believe someone was incensed over the movie Independence Day. It's just a movie!

6. I detect a level of disingenousness in the comments of people who despise GWB, or the government, or US foreign policy, but are just fine with Americans in general. One manifestation of this is the irrational hatred of GWB. I freely admit to having voted for him twice, but his policies to me are a mixed bag and when he is on TV I generally turn off the sound because his rhetorical ineptitude makes me cringe. At the same time one has to recognize that someone does not get to be elected governor twice and president twice and not have something on the ball. So, I give him the benefit of the doubt. My point is that some, perhaps many Bush critics, are sublimating their general feeling of anti-Americanism through GWB. The degree of hatred expressed by many towards him is just all out of proportion to what he has done. Furthermore, he was profoundly affected, as were most Americans, by 9/11, which brings me to my next and final point.

7. One longstanding component of American foreign policy is our support of the state of Israel. It is certainly the main reason cited in the Islamic world for their dislike of America and American foreign policy and one would assume, the main cause of the attack on 9/11. But the United States did not create Israel or force its existence on the Palestinians. Its war of independence, if you want to call it that, was not won using American military equipment. Zionism and the state of Israel are the product of centuries of persecution of Jews by Europeans culminating in the attempt to exterminate them altogether, the holocaust. But now we have this problem, and it is certainly a problem for the United States, and where are the Europeans? Well, it would seem that they are mainly siding with the Palestinians in what is fundamentally a dispute over land. It troubles me greatly that the burden of dealing with this problem has fallen on the United States when the origin of the problem is in Europe and for having to clean up their mess they feel obliged to view our government with contempt. Can someone explain this to me?


----------



## Outsider

Setwale_Charm said:


> Where was their hypocritical love for democracy in 1999?


In the same place where the hypocritical love for democracy of most Americans was when Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded?

This idea that Europeans hate America is laughable and shows a woeful lack of understanding of the outside world. Believe me, your real enemies lie elsewhere.

One thing that stands out to baffle me in these silly discussions about the European Anti-Americanism *media-manufactured non-issue* is how many Americans quietly accept that:

- any criticism of the U.S. is anti-Americanism;
- anyone who criticizes the U.S. deep down is just jealous.

I would expect this kind of reasoning from adolescents, not from adults.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Outsider said:


> In the same place where the hypocritical love for democracy of most Americans was when Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded?
> 
> This idea that Europeans hate America is laughable and shows a woeful lack of understanding of the outside world. Believe me, your real enemies lie elsewhere.
> 
> One thing that stands out to baffle me in these silly discussions about the European Anti-Americanism *media-manufactured non-issue* is how many Americans quietly accept that:
> 
> - any criticism of the U.S. is anti-Americanism;
> - anyone who criticizes the U.S. deep down is just jealous.
> 
> I would expect this kind of reasoning from adolescents, not from adults.


 
Oy, for goodness sake!! Stop being such an ageist! I wonder, why you would not write that you would expect this kind of reasoning from women and not men, or from blacks and not whites etc. And I do not expect such opinion from a Portuguese either since you are supposed to be a European country free from uncivilised stereotypes and so on and so on.... So many places in your reasoning which one can deem immature, I beg you. We all have different opinions but let us abstain from chauvinistic labels if we run out of arguments ourselves. But that`s a bit off-top.
Besides, I think you are mixing two things: the attitude to Americans from the outside which might indeed be biased at times or might be very objective at others and the perception of Americans of what is to be done about it. 
I must say that to an extent this might be true. Probably not so much in Europe which is more self-sufficient (apart from some raging left-wingers but I have never liked the left), but in Russia, for example, anti-Americanism and the anti-Western feeling in general are 98% pure jealousy and the rage because of Russia`s non-competitiveness and the inability to be considered a great superpower as they would like to think themselves. 
But there is a danger for Americans in taking it too much that way because they lose the ability to evaluate themselves objectively. If they ascribe anything of non-complimetary nature to jealousy only, they will go on thinking: Oh, that`s just envy. There is nothing wrong with us. We are OK, even perfect, all this barking is just jealousy and nothing needs to be changed.... And, thus, lose any capability of seeing that something might be going very wrong with themselves. 
This is happening to Russia now. It is hopeless and doomed as a nation ironically not only because the situation is so bad but because it considers itself "a great nation" with "a great soul" where everything is fine and all that is bad is just the invention of the enemous West or a pro-Western government and, therefore, nothing needs to be done about it. And, consequently, it is perishing in great pride and belief of its own superiority. They do not want to do anything about the crisis, they do not feel that it is real. Everybody has to beware of this attitude of complete lack of self-criticism.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Actually, Russia gives a very good demonstration for the US of what can happen to it too. I have a great many colleagues in the States who are all wonderful people and thanks to their profession they realise too that the danger that the US (or any superpower for that matter, unfortunately, nobody has been able to testify on how it was in the Great British Empire) faces is the danger of their patriotism becoming too extravert, that is, when it all becomes about influencing, or yet, suppressing other members of the world family rather than strengthening and caring for one`s own population. The situation wth social programmes in the US is awful and far behind not only Europe but even some Asian states. There is little attention to modernising them and there is a great stagnation in the society in this respect. Nobody cares much, the future of America is supposedly at stake in Irak or Afghanistan or elsewhere. 
And this is the classical situation when a superpower forgets that its prefix "super" stems not from the number of countries where it keeps its military bases and which she invades but from the way it cares for its own people, from the health of its society. This is exactly the situation of Russia now. There is an excess of patriotism, nationalism, aggression but it is all about acquiring more weapons, making more states submit to its influence, beating somebody out there after all. It is nothing about turning attention to its own dying, degrading population inside of it. And, I believe, the US are now coming quite close to falling into the same trap. We shall see whether they will have enough wisdom and democratic tradition to avoid it. 
A true "super"power would value the lives of its soldiers and people ahead of any international ambition. And the money that are spent on bullets for rebellious Irakis are in reality there for American children, teenagers, families. They are the ones for whom the American economy works.


----------



## jabogitlu

> The situation wth social programmes in the US is awful and far behind not only Europe but even some Asian states. There is little attention to modernising them and there is a great stagnation in the society in this respect. Nobody cares much, the future of America is supposedly at stake in Irak or Afghanistan or elsewhere.



You would do well, Setwale_Charm, to come here and try to impart this wisdom to some Americans.    Our political system is in shambles; the politicians only care about making a career out of being a politician, and thus will pretty much do anything the people deem "good."  Combine this with the fact that they try as hard as they can to make up fights (the "War on Christmas," the "gay marriage debate," sometimes I even think the "War on Iraq") to distract the American people from real issues - first and foremost healthcare - and you have a recipe for utter disaster.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Thanks for the invitation, jabogitlu. but years of UN work are now making me more and more convinced that only the people of a particular nation themselves can do something about their life at home, no outside "advisor" or democracy-promoted (mention that to George B., Bill C. and Tony B.) can ever do something real about it. You have wonderful social workers but nobody listens to them, why would they listen to me?

Do not think, please, that politicians are better in other parts of the world. It is just a question of that the fewer ambitions a country has with regard to the outside world and its bossy role in it, the more time, money and attention it has for caring for its own people. I so often witness people being concerned about the "greatness" of their country on the international arena and boasting of how much influence it has but I have always thought that the best fate would be the fate of Iceland or a similar state, which realises that it will never be a great military giant and so has nothing else to do but spend its means on building its own welfare. I quite suspect that when all these ambitious giants will be swept away by wars, crime and inability to cope with their own size, Iceland and the like wil be thriving quietly for centuries.


----------



## PandaX

Outsider said:


> In the same place where the hypocritical love for democracy of most Americans was when Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded?
> 
> This idea that Europeans hate America is laughable and shows a woeful lack of understanding of the outside world. Believe me, your real enemies lie elsewhere.
> 
> One thing that stands out to baffle me in these silly discussions about the European Anti-Americanism *media-manufactured non-issue* is how many Americans quietly accept that:
> 
> - any criticism of the U.S. is anti-Americanism;
> - anyone who criticizes the U.S. deep down is just jealous.
> 
> I would expect this kind of reasoning from adolescents, not from adults.



Wow, in your short response you have accused many Americans of being ignorant to what goes on in the world, questioned our reasoning skills and intelligence, told us we lack virtue, and told us that we are more like children than adults.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Panda, I am becoming more and more tempted to give you an advice that hasn`t been asked for.
RELAX!! And stop overreacting and seeing enemies all around. We are just discussing on this forum. If you read other threads, there is no less criticism of other nations and people learn to take it objectively.
 You won`t get very far in persuading people they are wrong while taking this attitude.


----------



## PandaX

Setwale_Charm said:


> Actually, Russia gives a very good demonstration for the US of what can happen to it too. I have a great many colleagues in the States who are all wonderful people and thanks to their profession they realise too that the danger that the US (or any superpower for that matter, unfortunately, nobody has been able to testify on how it was in the Great British Empire) faces is the danger of their patriotism becoming too extravert, that is, when it all becomes about influencing, or yet, suppressing other members of the world family rather than strengthening and caring for one`s own population. The situation wth social programmes in the US is awful and far behind not only Europe but even some Asian states. There is little attention to modernising them and there is a great stagnation in the society in this respect. Nobody cares much, the future of America is supposedly at stake in Irak or Afghanistan or elsewhere.
> And this is the classical situation when a superpower forgets that its prefix "super" stems not from the number of countries where it keeps its military bases and which she invades but from the way it cares for its own people, from the health of its society. This is exactly the situation of Russia now. There is an excess of patriotism, nationalism, aggression but it is all about acquiring more weapons, making more states submit to its influence, beating somebody out there after all. It is nothing about turning attention to its own dying, degrading population inside of it. And, I believe, the US are now coming quite close to falling into the same trap. We shall see whether they will have enough wisdom and democratic tradition to avoid it.
> A true "super"power would value the lives of its soldiers and people ahead of any international ambition. And the money that are spent on bullets for rebellious Irakis are in reality there for American children, teenagers, families. They are the ones for whom the American economy works.



Social programs were even much more non-existent in the past and we did just fine. In fact, America accomplished much more back then. I wish many so-called social programs would just disappear.

The biggest difference between Europeans and Americans has always been the level of self-reliance. Europeans wish to be catered to by government and the rich much more so than Americans do. 

I'm very happy to live in a country where people are more on their own and where they are held much more to account, good or bad, for their decisions than in other countries. I believe this builds a strong nation of true character, of fortitude, and ingenuity.

The so-called social ills of America that turn off so many Europeans, in my opinion, are  things that oddly, or not, depending on how you look at it, make America's accomplishments and successes possible today, and throughout its history.


----------



## PandaX

Setwale_Charm said:


> Panda, I am becoming more and more tempted to give you an advice that hasn`t been asked for.
> RELAX!! And stop overreacting and seeing enemies all around. We are just discussing on this forum. If you read other threads, there is no less criticism of other nations and people learn to take it objectively.
> You won`t get very far in persuading people they are wrong while taking this attitude.



I am quite relaxed and this is, after all, a discussion about "American bashing." There was no overreaction whatsoever. My response was objectively accurate. In fact, the post I was responding to is often typical of the kind of overbearing and haughty response Americans get out of many Europeans that are eventually shown to be simply anti-American.

Please accept and respect my opinions as I am accepting and respecting yours. I do this also without saying that you are getting excited and without predicting how others in this forum are going to accept your views. Please extend that same courtesy to me.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

PandaX said:


> Social programs were even much more non-existent in the past and we did just fine. In fact, America accomplished much more back then. I wish many so-called social programs would just disappear.
> 
> The biggest difference between Europeans and Americans has always been the level of self-reliance. Europeans wish to be catered to by government and the rich much more so than Americans do.
> 
> I'm very happy to live in a country where people are more on their own and where they are held much more to account, good or bad, for their decisions than in other countries. I believe this builds a strong nation of true character, of fortitude, and ingenuity.


 
This was *most decidedly not* my impression of the US. Or of anybody of my acquaintances. The US would not have such a disastrous situation with the spread of various social pathologies. Be careful not to live in delusions. I have seen so many examples of what happens to a nation when they start ignoring its own problems and sing praises to its way of life trying to silence with it the evident. I fear you are living in a bliss. The problem is not only looking silly but it is simply a dangerous strategy for oneself.



PandaX said:


> The so-called social ills of America that turn off so many Europeans, in my opinion, are things that oddly, or not, depending on how you look at it, make America's accomplishments and successes possible today, and throughout its history.


 
Including the darkest pages?


----------



## PandaX

Setwale_Charm said:


> This was *most decidedly not* my impression of the US. Or of anybody of my acquaintances. The US would not have such a disastrous situation with the spread of various social pathologies. Be careful not to live in delusions. I have seen so many examples of what happens to a nation when they start ignoring its own problems and sing praises to its way of life trying to silence with it the evident. I fear you are living in a bliss. The problem is not only looking silly but it is simply a dangerous strategy for oneself.
> 
> 
> 
> Including the darkest pages?



What I stated in the first part of my post is extremely obvious and well know and accepted. Maybe you were not here long enough to see these obvious differences or maybe you do not know American history and culture as well as you might think.

Also, don't you see what you are doing? Now your are suggesting I may be delusional. Why can't you simply accept that other people may want to live in a different way than you do? 

When I lived in Europe never once did I feel it my place or my business to even suggest that Europeans should change their views in regards to their generous social programs. My view was, and still is, that if it's what a country democratically chooses for itself then who am I to judge.

Yes, including "the darkest pages." There has also been a lot more light than darkness. I don't dwell on the negative.


----------



## maxiogee

PandaX said:


> Yes, including "the darkest pages." There has also been a lot more light than darkness. I don't dwell on the negative.



Fortunately there are those who do!
those who dwell on the genocide upon which the American people built their nation;
those who dwell on American adventuring into the political affairs of countries in Central and South America, to say nothing of overseas countries;
those who dwell on America's race relations and how many states fought against the push for equality;
those who know how long the ERA has been hanging around;
those who see protest at official policy as something which all decent people must accept - without deeming it anti-state.

The negative is an on-going thing - and, like a hospitalised relative, deserving of an occasional visit - even if you wouldn't want to dwell there.


----------



## LV4-26

TRG said:
			
		

> 6. I detect a level of disingenousness in the comments of people who despise GWB, or the government, or US foreign policy, but are just fine with Americans in general. One manifestation of this is the irrational hatred of GWB. [...]My point is that some, perhaps many Bush critics, are sublimating their general feeling of anti-Americanism through GWB.


You're not the only one to think that. I've seen seen this assumption of yours expressed (more or less directly and overtly) quite frequently in the CD forum by other American forer@s. But you must understand that, by saying that, you're having us cornered. What do you expect from us? Do you want us to side with the minority of Americans that approve of Mr Bush's job performance lest we might be considered anti-American? Or do you want us just to shut our @#}] mouth? (which is what I already do most of the time anyway).

Do all Americans agree on everything? That is not the impression I get from reading this thread or others in the CD forum. Show me "Americanity"(?) and I'll tell you whether I'm anti-American or not.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

PandaX said:


> What I stated in the first part of my post is extremely obvious and well know and accepted. Maybe you were not here long enough to see these obvious differences or maybe you do not know American history and culture as well as you might think.
> 
> Also, don't you see what you are doing? Now your are suggesting I may be delusional. Why can't you simply accept that other people may want to live in a different way than you do?
> 
> When I lived in Europe never once did I feel it my place or my business to even suggest that Europeans should change their views in regards to their generous social programs. My view was, and still is, that if it's what a country democratically chooses for itself then who am I to judge.
> 
> Yes, including "the darkest pages." There has also been a lot more light than darkness. I don't dwell on the negative.


 
Well, the same about America. While living there never once did I feel at home, and not on the other planet. Despite all the kindness of Americans around me. And so what? I take it easy. We are different, you are right, and nobody is trying to impede the other choosing his way (At least, I am not). So am I to conclude that if you do not like the European way of living it means you were not long enough in Europe or maybe you do not know European history and culture as well as you might think? It is funny but you are constantly trying to prove exaactly what you are accusing others of trying to prove.
I am talking of delusions only in the way of that true pride and patriotism and concern for one`s country lies in very objective clear recognising of its current (and past) problems and not in pretending that they are not there. This is something that beats me in American and Russian rhetoric. If I publish a negative report about state of things in Russia and get the label of "the enemy" trying to kill the Russian pride and spirit.
I wonder, is it not their children that are dying from the present situation? Is it not the beloved ones who become victims of iut? Whta is the sense of further pretending it is not there and walking about with flags and slogans of patriotism 
I fully recognise all the trouble and problems we have in the UK, just because I love my country and want things to be better, but in reality, not in words and propaganda. Your ability to evaluate quite frankly the current problems and do something about thewm is directly linked to your love for your country. It is not about *painting* things nice, it is about *making* them better.


----------



## don maico

PandaX said:


> Social programs were even much more non-existent in the past and we did just fine. .


who is " we"? The rich and the affluent yes, the millions who suffered poverty and deprivation no!Arguements about personal responsabilities dont wash when so many can t earn enough to feed themselves properly, have decent housing , get first class medical services or education for their kids.This is why Europe has social programmes ,having learnt from its past.


----------



## TRG

LV4-26 said:


> You're not the only one to think that. I've seen seen this assumption of yours expressed (more or less directly and overtly) quite frequently in the CD forum by other American forer@s. But you must understand that, by saying that, you're having us cornered. What do you expect from us? Do you want us to side with the minority of Americans that approve of Mr Bush's job performance lest we might be considered anti-American? Or do you want us just to shut our @#}] mouth? (which is what I already do most of the time anyway).
> 
> Do all Americans agree on everything? That is not the impression I get from reading this thread or others in the CD forum. Show me "Americanity"(?) and I'll tell you whether I'm anti-American or not.


 
The point of my comment is only that people should be honest about what it is they are criticizing. GWB is an easy target in some respects, but to blame hime for everything you don't like about the United States or the current policies of its government is a gross oversimplification. Life is a bit more complicated than the matter of who sits in the White House. I see the pathological hatred of Bush mostly here in the US, some of which I take to be from people who are incapable of sophistocated political thought or others who simply hate their own country and find it easier to take it out on GWB. As for "shutting up", there is much political discourse that could just as well be left unsaid since it is unhelpful in any respect, but to express yourself is your right, so plase speak as loudly and as often as you like.


----------



## cuchuflete

American _bashing_ as I understand it is the spreading of very broad, and often very inaccurate generalizations about 300 million people.  It's superficial, and fairly easily debunked.
European _bashing_, including the use of nonsense political jargon such as "old Europe", is equally superficial and devoid of meaningful content.

Bashers—of all national stripes— seems to enjoy their earnest, heartfelt spewing so much.  It's much like young children in the park:  "My ______ is better than yours!"

In the meantime, we can discuss particular issues and problems, without attribution to an entire nation.  Has the US some sad past and present chapters in its history?  Of course.
Does that make it a terrible place, populated mostly by evil people?  Of course not.   Replace "US" with the name of any country you please and the answers will be the same.  
Big, powerful countries have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot by acting as if they were still bigger and more powerful than they really are.  Mine is no exception.  We grow, we learn, we improve, we try to maintain what is already good, and we commit errors.  Even GWB has recently shown signs of noticing that he isn't always right.  

When intelligent and informed people in the forum criticize some aspect of US foreign or domestic policy, or non-governmental social trends, I see no reason to be defensive.  I sometimes disagree with them, and at others find common ground.   

Reasoned discussion isn't bashing.  Honest disagreement isn't bashing, and shouldn't call for counter-bashing.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> American _bashing_ as I understand it is the spreading of very broad, and often very inaccurate generalizations about 300 million people. It's superficial, and fairly easily debunked.
> European _bashing_, including the use of nonsense political jargon such as "old Europe", is equally superficial and devoid of meaningful content.
> 
> Bashers—of all national stripes— seems to enjoy their earnest, heartfelt spewing so much. It's much like young children in the park: "My ______ is better than yours!"
> 
> In the meantime, we can discuss particular issues and problems, without attribution to an entire nation. Has the US some sad past and present chapters in its history? Of course.
> Does that make it a terrible place, populated mostly by evil people? Of course not. Replace "US" with the name of any country you please and the answers will be the same.
> Big, powerful countries have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot by acting as if they were still bigger and more powerful than they really are. Mine is no exception. We grow, we learn, we improve, we try to maintain what is already good, and we commit errors. Even GWB has recently shown signs of noticing that he isn't always right.
> 
> When intelligent and informed people in the forum criticize some aspect of US foreign or domestic policy, or non-governmental social trends, I see no reason to be defensive. I sometimes disagree with them, and at others find common ground.
> 
> Reasoned discussion isn't bashing. Honest disagreement isn't bashing, and shouldn't call for counter-bashing.


 I agree completely and 100% percent!
 We should not avoid discussing real problems hiding behind the political correctness screen. It does NOT mean anything negative.
 But now I am interested, cuchuflete. Do you deem me as a basher or as an honest disagree...mmm..whatever! Come, come, I have long lost touch with Irish Mafia so you can be honest!


----------



## cuchuflete

Setwale_Charm said:


> We should not avoid discussing real problems hiding behind the political correctness screen. It does NOT mean anything negative.
> But now I am interested, cuchuflete. Do you deem me as a basher or as an honest disagree...mmm..whatever! Come, come, I have long lost touch with Irish Mafia so you can be honest!



Like most members of the human race, I probably have an Irish ancestor lurking somewhere in the family tree, so I am highly offended at your cross-cultural reference to the Irish Mafia!  Harrrrrumph!

No, you are not a basher.  You have opinions.......about the usefulness of stereotyping that I fear give solice and comfort to the bashers.  It's clearly not your intent, yet the distance between a useful generality and a pernicious stereotype is very small in the hands of the unthoughtful.   

To me a basher is someone who comes to the party prepared to dislike the host and hostess, the guests, the food and libation.  They find themselves enjoying all of the above, and leave the party commenting to their escort that it was an aberration, and that all the people were on their best behavior, that the food must have been brought in by a caterer, and that they still thought the host and hostess are mean and manipulative. 

The basher is instinctively defensive, and has another side:
the professional victim.  Outsider pointed at this.   If one takes any criticism of any aspect of a country as grounds to
proclaim its virtues, and take a few good shots at the place of the person who issued the criticism, there should be a bleep on the basher radar.

Just to stir the pot a little, when somebody takes a scene in a TV program, or a newspaper or blog entry, and tries to extend that to characterize an entire nation, that smells like a basher at work.  A fellow basher would reply by criticizing the TV programs in the first basher's country.  

I wrote a post in a thread about the direction of the EU, cautioning people to be careful in emulting some parts of the US federal model.  I had referred to the tendency of many recent US presidents to try to shift power to one branch of government.  Along came a basher/defender-of-all-that-is-right-and-holy, and accused me of having Bush-bashed!  Astonishing?  Not really, if one is of the school of thought that teaches that people are either 100% in agreement, or are your bitter enemies.  

More pot-stirring: I'm a citizen of the US, and loyal to it, despite its mistakes.  I think GWB has made many grave errors in judgment.  I voted for his opponents, without enthusiasm, and primarily out of a concern for Supreme Court nominees.  I agree with two or three of his policy proposals.
He will retire in a couple of years.  His successor (whoever that may be) will also likely have some policies I like, and some that make me more than a little annoyed.   

Does this make me "anti-US"?   I hardly think so. If someone from another country expresses disagreement with a GWB policy which affects other countries, does this make that person "anti-US"?  No.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> American _bashing_ as I understand it is the spreading of very broad, and often very inaccurate generalizations about 300 million people. It's superficial, and fairly easily debunked.
> European _bashing_, including the use of nonsense political jargon such as "old Europe", is equally superficial and devoid of meaningful content.


 
I assume you refer to the time Rusmfeld used this in discussing some type of political realignment in Europe. I have never quite understood what the fuss was about. Europe, having a very long history has gone through many transitions such that at any point in time one could properly refer to the previous period as "old Europe". As an example I give you the book Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 by Tony Judt. He has an entire chapter titled "The End of Old Europe" which talks about the transition that Europe made following the end of WWII. I have always assumed that Rumsfeld was speaking of the change in the political climate in Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany, etc., but he may have borrowed the phrase from Judt. In any case why would one consider the use of this term as pejorative when applied to Europe or any other region of the world? And please get a copy of the book, read the chapter, then tell me it is devoid of meaningful content.


----------



## Outsider

My memory of the events is fuzzy, but I always thought the subtext was that Old Europe was code for Germany and France (i.e., the part which opposed the Iraq War), while the New Europe was the part that supported G.W.B.


----------



## cuchuflete

I was referring to those who mimic Rumsfeld, who may or may not have read Judt.  A hollow slogan, regardless of good antecedents, is a frequently used tool in the hands of bashers.

TRG is a thoughtful reader, interested in the factual, historical background of the phrase.  There is nothing remotely like bashing in that.  But put the term in the hands of a Fox news
talking head, and the original meaning is lost entirely, and it becomes a code term for "those useless old farts who won't do it our way, and so are worthy of contempt".


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> I was referring to those who mimic Rumsfeld, who may or may not have read Judt. A hollow slogan, regardless of good antecedents, is a frequently used tool in the hands of bashers.
> 
> TRG is a thoughtful reader, interested in the factual, historical background of the phrase. There is nothing remotely like bashing in that. But put the term in the hands of a Fox news
> talking head, and the original meaning is lost entirely, and it becomes a code term for "those useless old farts who won't do it our way, and so are worthy of contempt".


 
I think that Outsider's interpretation of Rumsfeld's remark is more correct than mine. My recollection is that the fuss really begain when he spoke those words when people were reacting to Rumsfeld and not the ensuing storm of drivel from the "talking heads". But, I get your point.

P.S. cuchu... I always tell people that the main reason I had for voting *for* GWB was because of the type of judges he would appoint, so your comment about the judges made me LOL.


----------



## former_chomsky_advocate

modgirl said:


> It was one of the first things that came up on Google!
> 
> However, I'm surprised that you would question the Judeo-Christian roots. I thought it was common knowledge.


 
Have you read the Treaty of Tripoli?


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> P.S. cuchu... I always tell people that the main reason I had for voting *for* GWB was because of the type of judges he would appoint, so your comment about the judges made me LOL.



And this is good proof that we can disagree without either of us being "anti-American".


I believe even Rumsfeld had good intentions, but I join with what I believe to be many millions of Europeans and US citizens in finding severe fault with his logic and strategy and, especially, tactics.  The "Old Europe" term was quickly taken up by bashers...though in that particular case not bashers of America.
We had a curious juxtaposition of stated US policy, promote democracy worldwide, and criticism of European leaders who were practicing democracy—representing their respective electorates in pursuing a policy contrary to that of the US.  

Democracy played out in Spain and Italy with the removal of
what I suppose Rumsfeld meant by "new Europe", with Aznar and Berlusconi sent out of power.  The same thing sort of, almost, followed in the US, with Rumsfeld taking the fall for the administration after the last elections.  

That's a long preamble. Sorry.   My point is this: If a European finds fault with US policy, especially if that policy will cause their country to either commit troops to combat, or be tarred and feathered by a senior official of the US government, that is no reason to assert that they are 'bashing' the US.  If Lula takes issue with quasi-nationalization of natural resources by Evo Morales, at the expense of a partly state-owned Petrobras, that is not Bolivia bashing. It's disagreement. Period/Full stop.

Calling Americans provincial, or Europeans smug, is bashing.
It is as uninformed as it is uninformative.   And the reverse...


----------



## jabogitlu

> those who dwell on America's race relations and how many states fought against the push for equality;



And still do fight against it, unfortunately.



LV4-26 said:


> Do all Americans agree on everything? That is not the impression I get from reading this thread or others in the CD forum. Show me "Americanity"(?) and I'll tell you whether I'm anti-American or not.



Most certainly not!   America is more polarized politically and socially than it has been in years; we're about on the level of feeling at the Civil War and at the peak of the Civil Rights movement, in my opinion.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Outsider said:
			
		

> One thing that stands out to baffle me in these silly discussions about the European Anti-Americanism *media-manufactured non-issue* is how many Americans quietly accept that:
> 
> - any criticism of the U.S. is anti-Americanism;
> - anyone who criticizes the U.S. deep down is just jealous.
> 
> I would expect this kind of reasoning from adolescents, not from adults.



I've just picked out this post and I must say I completely agree. The American media is so partisan it makes it hard for them to get an honest analysis of the issues. Everything seems to centered on this strange liberal versus conservative bias thing they have going on. Fox News (which I've started watching) is the most shameful "news" outlet I've ever seen. All they do is plug pro-Bush, pro-war sentiments, calling anyone who criticizes the US as "jealous" and "haters" etc. They've even called the UN an anti-American organization! It really annoys me that this is the type of media the American public has to rely on for news. The Daily Show with John Stewart provides better analysis of the issues, I'm not joking either!


----------



## JamesM

In my opinion, Fox News is an entertainment channel, not a news channel.     Our news in general is no longer a reporting of facts but a commentary on them, no matter which news channel you choose.   The people I know who are interested in actual news do not rely on any of the news channels in the U.S. for their information, other than for local events and weather.


----------



## ElaineG

> The American media is so partisan it makes it hard for them to get an honest analysis of the issues.


 
Have you formed that impression by watching only Fox News?

I find the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, 60 Minutes and CNN to have liberal-centrist editorial policies but to do a fairly balanced job of reporting the news.  In general, I do not find these news outlets to be any more biased (I would say less biased) then newspapers in Italy, France and the UK, most if not all of which are explicitly aligned with a political viewpoint and cover accordingly.  (Those are the only other countries whose newspapers I read on a quasi-daily basis, I can't speak for places where I don't read the language or read the papers only occassionally).

I find the Wall Street Journal to have a right-wing editorial policy but to do an extremely good job of reporting the news.

The extended reporting in the New Yorker, which have ranged from Philip Gourevitch's amazing writing on Rwanda, to Seymour Hirsch's sometimes right, sometimes wrong, always fascinating exposes of American foreign policy, to groundbreaking reporting on the epidemic of false "recovered memories" and so on and so forth remains unmatched, in my opinion.

So, I think it's quite off-base to characterize the "American media" in light of Fox News.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I think you raise a good point JamesM.
In England I watch a lot of American TV (love the Daily show!)
Frequently I'll record Hanity and Colmes on Fox (usually just to spend an hour gritting my teeth) but it interests me anyway.
I can't watch O'Reilly anymore without putting a javelin through the TV.

It is channels like Fox that really make me think "Oh my god, Americans are like this?!!?" - with the exception of Ian Colmes, I like him, hate Hanity though.

I have heard a lot of Americans say they don't rely on American news channels for the real news, and I've heard a lot of their views, especially when London was attacked, and a lot of American news channels didn't report that (apparently) and they were angry because they thought it wasn't important because it wasn't happening in America.

For this reason I no longer take American TV to judge Americans (as I once thought was reasonable seeing as it was Americans in America talking TO Americans).


----------



## Setwale_Charm

ElaineG said:


> Have you formed that impression by watching only Fox News?
> So, I think it's quite off-base to characterize the "American media" in light of Fox News.


 
 That would be a bit like forming your impression of American men basing it on those bride-seekers we discussed lately. Unfortunately, one also has to recognise that`s the way it usually works and the way opinions are usually made.


----------



## ElaineG

> I have heard a lot of Americans say they don't rely on American news channels for the real news, and I've heard a lot of their views, especially when London was attacked, and a lot of American news channels didn't report that (apparently) and they were angry because they thought it wasn't important because it wasn't happening in America.


 
Where have you heard or seen that the London attacks weren't reported? 

By the time I woke up that morning, CNN was running nothing else, they interrupted normal broadcasting on the music radio station I wake up to to cover the events, they interrupted normal broadcast TV to cover it (at least here in NY).

By the time I got to work that day, everyone had heard about the attacks and were talking about nothing else.

Indeed, I remember spending an hour glued to the TV that morning as all sorts of confusion was reported, with different numbers of bombs, casualties, etc. were reported and then e-mailing all my friends in London immediately as they did me on 9/11.

Actually, here is one American journalist criticizing the American coverage as compared to the British coverage (but not suggesting by any means that there was not American coverage):



> _Baltimore Sun_ television critic David Zurawik noted a marked contrast between the approach of the BBC and that of American broadcasters. The day after the bombings, Zurawik wrote:
> While the American news channels and commercial networks that aired in Britain yesterday were filled with images of carnage and talk of confusion in the wake of bombings in London, the BBC, the most-watched news outlet in the United Kingdom in times of crisis, offered viewers an oasis of relative calm​




http://www.dartcenter.org/articles/headlines/2005/2005_07_15.html​


----------



## Alxmrphi

CNN is different, I check CNN.com nearly everyday and even on the American website (not the international one) they are reporting about the serial killer in Ipswich which surprised me.

I remember being in a chatroom with someone and they were talking about it with some other Americans, and Ozzies.

Can't give you a date/time/location, it's just something I've always remembered.

(By the way I don't think he was refering to all the media, but a few news channels failed to report it, obviously CNN/ and all the other media giants would have)


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> CNN is different, I check CNN.com nearly everyday and even on the American website (not the international one) they are reporting about the serial killer in Ipswich which surprised me.
> 
> I remember being in a chatroom with someone and they were talking about it with some other Americans, and Ozzies.
> 
> Can't give you a date/time/location, it's just something I've always remembered.
> 
> (By the way I don't think he was refering to all the media, but a few news channels failed to report it, obviously CNN/ and all the other media giants would have)



This is how urban legends (widely believed falsehoods) get started.

I was in a chatroom and I remember hearing somebody say that.....

"but a few news channels failed to report it".  

Show me one so-called news channel that failed to report it!

I have a friend whose uncle is in the news business, I think, and she said she read in a chatroom that Prince Charles blahdeeblahbah.  

Should we assume from this that British forum members are universally able to gobble up and regurgitate unsubstantiated rumors?  Or is it just the very trusting ones who are prepared to take a preposterous notion and give it credence?

Your turn, Prof. Murphy.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

ElaineG said:


> Have you formed that impression by watching only Fox News?
> 
> I find the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, 60 Minutes and CNN to have liberal-centrist editorial policies but to do a fairly balanced job of reporting the news.  In general, I do not find these news outlets to be any more biased (I would say less biased) then newspapers in Italy, France and the UK, most if not all of which are explicitly aligned with a political viewpoint and cover accordingly.  (Those are the only other countries whose newspapers I read on a quasi-daily basis, I can't speak for places where I don't read the language or read the papers only occassionally).
> 
> I find the Wall Street Journal to have a right-wing editorial policy but to do an extremely good job of reporting the news.
> 
> The extended reporting in the New Yorker, which have ranged from Philip Gourevitch's amazing writing on Rwanda, to Seymour Hirsch's sometimes right, sometimes wrong, always fascinating exposes of American foreign policy, to groundbreaking reporting on the epidemic of false "recovered memories" and so on and so forth remains unmatched, in my opinion.
> 
> So, I think it's quite off-base to characterize the "American media" in light of Fox News.



Hmm.. I was referring mainly to the television media as we don't get a lot of American newspapers over here. I've watched MSNBC, CNN and FOX News. MSNBC and CNN are pretty straight down the middle but according to what I've read, MSNBC dosen't get very many viewers (in comparison to the others) and CNN has turned more to the right in the wake of the success of FOX and FOX, well they are a farce (what objective network has their national flag flying in the corner of the screen).

I was watching Al-Jazeera English the other night (despite what most Americans think it really is a very good channel) and it did a topic on how some American news outlets have changed from straight news reporting to politically slanted "opinion" news. So on FOX it showed Bill O'Reilly, Hannity (who must be a member of the Republican leadership) & Colmes etc. and on CNN and MSNBC other right wing hosts, some of whom asked a newly elected Muslim congressman if he was "working with the enemy!" Now, I could be wrong as I'm not an American but I think many in the television media skew the facts in favour of a particular position and, especially on FOX, come from this right wing view that to criticize Bush or the American army's actions in Iraq is tantamount to treason. I guess it's no surprise the American public voted again for Bush in in 2004, look who they have informing them!


----------



## cuchuflete

Pedro de La Torre said:
			
		

> I guess it's no surprise the American public voted again for Bush in in 2004, look who they have informing them!


 The logic of that breaks down when you consider the most recent election, in which Bush's allies were roundly defeated.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

cuchuflete said:


> The logic of that breaks down when you consider the most recent election, in which Bush's allies were roundly defeated.



You are correct. But I think that was mainly because Iraq is such a disaster that it couldn't be siphoned off as "teething problems of a democracy" no matter how much FOX et al tried.

Come close elections like 2004, I personally believe FOX and other right wing media played a huge role in getting Bush re-elected. But I could be wrong, after all I'm viewing this from afar.


----------



## cuchuflete

We are adrift, far from the original topic, so I'll sneak in a brief reply.  The folks who watch Fox are already "true believers".
The more thoughtful among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are apt to watch and read other media.  They are the "swing" voters who decide close elections.


----------



## jabogitlu

> The people I know who are interested in actual news do not rely on any of the news channels in the U.S. for their information, other than for local events and weather.



Yup, I only do Mother Jones and occassionally CNN.

As for how Bush was re-elected - you had to be there.  America was in full throttle of a war we knew nothing about, "Praise America" sentiment was still running high.  It wasn't seen as smart to change leaders during a time like this. (Don't bash me , I'm a libertarian/independent, but this is what I saw happening, mostly.)


----------



## Outsider

Say what you will about the traditional news media in the U.S., but they've also got plenty of excellent non-conventional alternatives; on the Internet, for example.


----------



## TRG

Alex_Murphy said:


> I think you raise a good point JamesM.
> In England I watch a lot of American TV (love the Daily show!)
> Frequently I'll record Hanity and Colmes on Fox (usually just to spend an hour gritting my teeth) but it interests me anyway.
> I can't watch O'Reilly anymore without putting a javelin through the TV.
> 
> It is channels like Fox that really make me think "Oh my god, Americans are like this?!!?" - with the exception of Ian Colmes, I like him, hate Hanity though.
> 
> I have heard a lot of Americans say they don't rely on American news channels for the real news, and I've heard a lot of their views, especially when London was attacked, and a lot of American news channels didn't report that (apparently) and they were angry because they thought it wasn't important because it wasn't happening in America.
> 
> For this reason I no longer take American TV to judge Americans (as I once thought was reasonable seeing as it was Americans in America talking TO Americans).


 
So now that we have established that "America Bashing" is a real phenomenon, what do you propose to do about it? ECT for all the FOX viewers maybe?


----------



## cuchuflete

Help me out TRG, please. What is "ECT"?


----------



## Vin Raven

ElaineG said:


> I find the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, 60 Minutes and CNN to have liberal-centrist editorial policies but to do a fairly balanced job of reporting the news.  In general, I do not find these news outlets to be any more biased (I would say less biased) then newspapers in Italy, France and the UK, most if not all of which are explicitly aligned with a political viewpoint and cover accordingly.  (Those are the only other countries whose newspapers I read on a quasi-daily basis, I can't speak for places where I don't read the language or read the papers only occassionally).
> 
> I find the Wall Street Journal to have a right-wing editorial policy but to do an extremely good job of reporting the news.


I would agree with those 3 papers, the W.Post, the NYT and the Wall Street Journal all provide solid reporting.

Jim Lehrer is a maybe for me, I haven't watched him lately.

60 Minutes and CNN are infotainment, not much different from 20/20 or Fox News. Just like CNN's Lou Dobbs is equivalent to Fox's Bill O'Reilly, and if I'm going to watch infotainment, I prefer to watch The Daily Show with John Stewart.

You did neglect to mention NPR, which I personally consider one of the best news sources in the US bar none, especially wbur.org and wamu.org though I'd say most of the npr.org channels are solid.


----------



## ElaineG

> You did neglect to mention NPR, which I personally consider one of the best news sources in the US bar none, especially wbur.org and wamu.org though I'd say most of the npr.org channels are solid.


 
I listen to npr all the time, but I left it out on purpose as I find it to be sufficiently biased that I would characterize it as the lefties Fox.


----------



## Vin Raven

ElaineG said:


> I listen to npr all the time, but I left it out on purpose as I find it to be sufficiently biased that I would characterize it as the lefties Fox.



That's a rather inane comparison.
First off NPR primarily provides news, not infotainment, even if they do have some fun entertainment shows.
Secondly, the absence of bias is not the opposite of a particular bias.

In the same way someone can disagree with a conservative without being a liberal and disagree with a liberal without being a conservative, it's called providing fact analyses.


----------



## cuchuflete

Can we give press criticism a break, and return to the topic?

We seem to have established that news reporting in the US consists of more than Fox and CNN, and that some non-US residents know the US mostly through Fox and CNN.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> Help me out TRG, please. What is "ECT"?


 
Electroconvulsive or electroshock therapy. It is sometimes used as a treatment for people with mental disorders such as schizophrenia. Probably a bad joke on my part, but it's meant to speak to the point that in political debate often times people are in such disbelief of the people on the other side that they think they must be crazy. America bashing, to the extent it exists, is probably just a manifestation of people vilifying their political opponents out of contempt. This comes from the fringes, but unfortunately they seem to have the loudest voices.


----------



## Shauneyzboyz

I never understood why, but people, in general, seem to think of the individual _as _the group instead of _a member of_ the group.

The distinction lies distinctly in the fact that many Americans will think of the French as jerks because of what they heard about a few French people.  Subsequently, the whole lot of the rest of the world will classify an American by the few Americans they have seen or stories they have heard about a few Americans.  Even worse, we as Americans will generally get classified as people in compliance with Bush...who seems to be the misanthrope to the world.

I guess that its human nature to some extent, and in that case, we can blame nothing but ignorance itself...and that's intangible, so it's not very useful to stick our tongues out at it.

All we can do really is continue to love our fellow man (god that sounds cheesy).  I mean, The Beach Boys said it best: "All you need is love."  Right?


----------



## Setwale_Charm

TRG said:


> This comes from the fringes, but unfortunately they seem to have the loudest voices.





Shauneyzboyz said:


> I never understood why, but people, in general, seem to think of the individual _as _the group instead of _a member of_ the group.
> 
> The distinction lies distinctly in the fact that many Americans will think of the French as jerks because of what they heard about a few French people. Subsequently, the whole lot of the rest of the world will classify an American by the few Americans they have seen or stories they have heard about a few Americans. Even worse, we as Americans will generally get classified as people in compliance with Bush


 
  Isn`t like that always and everywhere?


----------



## Shauneyzboyz

Setwale_Charm said:


> Isn`t like that always and everywhere?



It is...which is what I motion towards in my very next line.


----------



## maxiogee

Shauneyzboyz said:


> All we can do really is continue to love our fellow man (god that sounds cheesy).  I mean, The Beach Boys said it best: "All you need is love."  Right?



You'll have to stand closer to the Mike, the crowd can't hear you!


----------



## Alxmrphi

cucho, do you need a team or scientists and investigators to constantly prove/disprove everything you hear?

Of course we all pick up rumours and things that can't be proved, I said "apparently", I never said it was concrete proof, but even this doesn't mean it is subject to instant dismissal.


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> cucho, do you need a team or scientists and investigators to constantly prove/disprove everything you hear? No, but you don't have to blindly embrace something because some sage in a chatboard put it out on offer to you, so that you might automatically assume that it's correct, just because it fits with your pre-existing prejudice.
> 
> Of course we all pick up rumours and things that can't be proved, I said "apparently", I never said it was concrete proof, but even this doesn't mean it is subject to instant dismissal.



The oft-repeated rumors that Alex has had a long-standing relationship with ________ have not been authoritatively proved, but apparently there is something to them.


If I write that in enough threads, someone will surely come along and assume that there must be something to it, and repeat it.  They may leave out the part about 'not proved', just in the interest of posting quickly. (And without any attempt at questioning what they are comfortable believing...)






Life may be too short to verify every single thing you read, but you do bring some good potential filters with you when you read, such as logic.

Try asking yourself questions, before accepting something as true.

Example:  London bombings
Hypothesis: US news channels do not report this.
Questions: 
—1- Do news channels constantly seek dramatic, sensational stories?
—2- Is it in their economic self-interest to present these?
—3- Is the story available, at no extra cost, from wire services such as Reuters, AP, AFP?
—4- Is it the lead story on all competitive channels?
—5- Is the editor of a news channel likely to see it being reported when signing on to the web?
—6- Does the news channel like to be the only one to omit a major story?

Conclusion: the hypothesis is probably crap.

Result: Ignore all of the above, and repeat the hypothesis as if it were true.  (Duh??)


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I have *HEARD *(not believed) a lot of Americans say they don't rely on American news channels for the real news, and I've* HEARD *a lot of their views, especially when London was attacked, and a lot of American news channels didn't report that (*apparently*) and they were angry because they thought it wasn't important because it wasn't happening in America.



I am not blindly believing it at all, I am just bringing up a point I heard for discussion, I'm not by any means arguing that this is true, but putting it forward for discussion.

+ Where are you pulling this "there is something to them" from?


----------



## cuchuflete

Leaving aside the story of the affair Alex is having with ________ (apparently) for just a moment, let's look at the text without highlighting:



I have heard a lot of Americans say they don't rely on American news channels for the real news,   first-hand anecdotal reporting.  


 and I've heard a lot of their views, especially when London was attacked,  stage-setting, context

 and a lot of American news channels didn't report that (apparently)  undue reliance on the quality of chatboard sources, and with no application of even a minimal logical
examination--- see what I added to my previous post, right after I got done reporting on "L'affaire Alex". 


 and they were angry  who was angry, the news channels or the chatboard gurus and sages?  The news wasn't hard to come by on any radio or television channel or newspaper or web source.  What were the angry ones smoking for breakfast?


because they thought it wasn't important because it wasn't happening in America.   Falsehood that omits "(apparently)" and assumes that the phoney statement was factual.  Further, it attributes a motive to the falsehood, furthering the impression that it was factual!


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> I am not blindly believing it at all, I am just bringing up a point I heard for discussion, I'm not by any means arguing that this is true, but putting it forward for discussion.
> 
> * + Where are you pulling this "there is something to them" from?*



Quoting the original source, something I saw in a respected forum...


> ...but *apparently* there is something to them.



Therefore, I am 'not blindly believing it at all, I am just bringing up a point I heard for discussion'.  

Do you have any idea who it _might_ be?

​


----------



## Québec-Jakarta

It's not only the Europeans who bad mouth the USA...  when I was still in Canada, we were doing it and now I'm in Indonesia and we also do it... it's a world wide issue.  Actualy the Americans are in an attempt to police the world, so here's the result.  But the same people who are talking against the American way are also watching their movies, listenings to their singers, etc...  If they're not invading you with theirs tanks, they will do it with their culture.  So sit back and enjoy the ride 'coz it's just the beginning.  The Americans can appear extremely arrogant to the majority of us, but in the actual situation, they have all the luxury to be that way!


----------



## Mate

Québec-Jakarta said:


> It's not only the Europeans who bad mouth the USA... when I was still in Canada, we were doing it and now I'm in Indonesia and we also do it... it's a world wide issue. Actualy the Americans are in an attempt to police the world, so here's the result. But the same people who are talking against the American way are also watching their movies, listenings to their singers, etc... If they're not invading you with theirs tanks, they will do it with their culture. So sit back and enjoy the ride 'coz it's just the beginning. The Americans can appear extremely arrogant to the majority of us, but in the actual situation, they have all the luxury to be that way!


This post sounds pretty "factual" to me. 

From the southernmost country of the American Continent, I concur with Québec-Jakarta: it is indeed a world wide issue.

Salut - Mate


----------



## Shauneyzboyz

Québec-Jakarta said:


> Actualy the Americans are in an attempt to police the world, so here's the result.  But the same people who are talking against the American way are also watching their movies, listenings to their singers, etc...  If they're not invading you with theirs tanks, they will do it with their culture.  So sit back and enjoy the ride 'coz it's just the beginning.



See...this post is exactly what I'm talking about.

The very first line, you say "the Americans" are policing the world.  Well......I'm an American, does that mean that _I'm _trying to police the world too.  Too often do American citizens get seen as people in accordance to the actions of the government.  Not only that, we are seen as practically responsible for the bad things that the U.S. is doing in the world.  Remember...49% of the American population didn't vote for this guy, yet we get blamed for it anyway.


----------



## TRG

Québec-Jakarta said:


> It's not only the Europeans who bad mouth the USA... when I was still in Canada, we were doing it and now I'm in Indonesia and we also do it... it's a world wide issue. Actualy the Americans are in an attempt to police the world, so here's the result. But the same people who are talking against the American way are also watching their movies, listenings to their singers, etc... If they're not invading you with theirs tanks, they will do it with their culture. So sit back and enjoy the ride 'coz it's just the beginning. The Americans can appear extremely arrogant to the majority of us, but in the actual situation, they have all the luxury to be that way!


 
Everyone should understand that some resentment and distrust of the United States is to be expected. At the same time people should try to understand that the role the US has on the world stage is to some degree an accident of history. It is not as if everyone living in the US today voted to make this country the world's biggest economy and the world's greatest military superpower. It has just happened and to some extent it has happened with the willing participation of other countries, who have come to rely on the US military capability for their own defense. It is not clear to me that this has been a really good bargin for the American citizen who must pay the bill. When the "cold war" ended defense spending in the US was cut substantially which was a significant factor in our having a balanced federal budget in the late 1990's. Somewhat ironically, the credit for this went to President Clinton, who, of course, had hardly anything to do with bringing an end to the cold war, but that's another story. Now we are back to increasing our defense budget and deficit spending. I'm just one American, but I would like to be able to spend that money on other things. The cold war has been replaced by a new war now, the war against Islamic extremists. This war has come to us because of our size and influence not because we sought it or sought to dominate the Islamic world. It is a "tar baby". We have struck it and now we are stuck.


----------



## Mate

Many US citizens and even more non-US citizens say that it is all about the oil. 

I'm confused about the truth. 

May be both views -the war against Islamic extremists and the oil issue- are true.


----------



## Sepia

Questions:

How many wars have you heard of where it was not basically about money?

What should be the idea of fighting extremists of any sort in a Vietnam war like manner that is inevitably going to develop more hatred against Americans - and maninly concentrate the fight in regions with a lot of oil?

If it were about democracy why did hardly anone show any reaction to killing of a couple of million people in Africa some years ago? Isn't genocide the gravest violation of democratic rights?

-------

And a bit of history:

Cuba had a democracy before Batista. 
Batista was had the support of the USA and the Mafia.
And they call Castro a dictator.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

TRG said:


> This war has come to us because of our size and influence not because we sought it or sought to dominate the Islamic world.





Who toppled Mossadegh in 1953 because he nationalized Anglo-Persian Oil? Who finances the Israelis? Who supported _and_ armed Saddam with chemical weapons to use against the Iranians in the 1980's? Who supported and financed the mujahideen against the Soviets in the 1980's? Who invaded Iraq?

No I think the US has a rather long history of meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.


----------



## cuchuflete

The topic of this thread is something other than a listing of every foreign policy action by the US that you don't like.


There are loads of them that US citizens don't like either.


----------



## djchak

Sepia said:


> Questions:
> 
> How many wars have you heard of where it was not basically about money?
> 
> - and maninly concentrate the fight in regions with a lot of oil?
> 
> 
> And they call Castro a dictator.



So ...kosovo/belgrade/bosnia was all about money

Where was the oil?

The oil argument is weak. The US has spent 350 BILLION dollars so far, and the oil money all goes towards..the Iraqis.

Anyway, we are getting away from the original subject. Are the reasons you listed...just foreign policy..the only reason for American Bashing?


----------



## Sepia

What the American participation in the Balkans is concerned - remember nothing happened before voices got loud: "When it was about Kuwait you were quick and talked about freedom and democracy - and what now? There is no oil in the Balkans."

350 Billions are not that much when spread on 200 Millions of taxpayers when it secures cheap oil for another 10-20 years. Besides, nobody knows if they had not expected it to be cheaper. Only, they would not say that loud, would they.

And yes, I do believe, that this type of foreign politics is the main if not only reason for some people hating Americans. 

For my part that is sufficient to hate some Americans. I was not really into the American Bashing until I saw some of the answers from Americans showing up in this thread.


----------



## Shauneyzboyz

Sepia said:


> And yes, I do believe, that this type of foreign politics is the main if not only reason for some people hating Americans.
> 
> For my part that is sufficient to hate some Americans. I was not really into the American Bashing until I saw some of the answers from Americans showing up in this thread.



Wait...so why am I blamed (and the whole lot of Americans) for something that the government is doing?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

^^But the government could not do anything without the public's support could they?

While "American Bashing" is wrong, and something I would never personally do, I do think the policies of the American government are inevitably fuelling this unfortunate phenomenon.

In reverse, how many Americans slated the French as "weak" and "surrender monkeys" because they did not support the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Now it was hardly fair to demonize a whole nation because of their refusal to support you invading another country but that's what many (not all) in America did. So now you're getting it back. It's not fair but that's the way it goes.


----------



## former_chomsky_advocate

Shauneyzboyz said:


> Wait...so why am I blamed (and the whole lot of Americans) for something that the government is doing?


 
Because of the election results, for which the majority of voting Americans' choice caused the government's actions.


----------



## djchak

Sepia said:


> - and what now? There is no oil in the Balkans."
> 
> 350 Billions are not that much when spread on 200 Millions of taxpayers when it secures cheap oil for another 10-20 years. Besides, nobody knows if they had not expected it to be cheaper. Only, they would not say that loud, would they.
> 
> And yes, I do believe, that this type of foreign politics is the main if not only reason for some people hating Americans.
> 
> For my part that is sufficient to hate some Americans. I was not really into the American Bashing until I saw some of the answers from Americans showing up in this thread.



SO...it was to secure cheap oil..but the price of oil keeps going up...

So..when Americans answer questions honestly....this is the response we can expect. 

Tell me, do you read "Stern" often?


----------



## Sepia

Shauneyzboyz said:


> Wait...so why am I blamed (and the whole lot of Americans) for something that the government is doing?



If you don't support these things I don't put any blame on you. Generalizations are always stupid. And just as difficult to explain how someone claims to be supporting democracy and doing the opposite.


----------



## former_chomsky_advocate

Sepia said:


> Generalizations are always stupid.


 
I see.


----------



## Shauneyzboyz

Pedro y La Torre said:


> ^^But the government could not do anything without the public's support could they?



No...the government can do anything as long as the majority consents to it.  Sure...60,693,281 people agreed with Bush enough to vote for him in 2004...but 58,313,152 disagreed with him enough to not vote for him.  -- And that's not even taking to account the fact that less voted for Bush than Gore in 2000. --



> In reverse, how many Americans slated the French as "weak" and "surrender monkeys" because they did not support the 2003 invasion of Iraq?



Not I.  As well as many other people I know.

--

Ugh...now I remember why I loathed talking about politics.


----------



## Shauneyzboyz

Shauneyzboyz said:


> No...the government can do anything as long as the majority consents to it.



Hmm...maybe I went too far with "the government can do _anything._"

Logistically, I guess it could be true.  But the government doing _anything _could, in theory, throw half the country in disagreement...pitting half the country against the government and the other half of the country against the protestors of the government, which, with enough fuel, would put us in a civil war.  I suppose we need that more than a war in Iraq, but I don't see it happening.


----------



## djchak

Sepia said:


> If you don't support these things I don't put any blame on you. Generalizations are always stupid. And just as difficult to explain how someone claims to be supporting democracy and doing the opposite.



How are we failing to "support democracy", and in what way are we Americans doing the opposite?


----------



## jabogitlu

> ^^But the government could not do anything without the public's support could they?



You really have to live here to understand what has happened in the last 8 years.  The Bush administrations (both dynasties) were and continue to be masterful at deceit, backdoor deals and outright falsehoods.  They distract the (common, ignorant, which unfortunately are the majority) people with absurd "Moralopolitical" arguments while still continuing to do whatever they want to as long as it makes them BIG MONEY.

I don't know the real reason we went into Iraq, but it wasn't for fighting the "War on Terror" - this is as made up as the "War on Christmas" - and it wasn't for liberating the Iraqi or Afghani peoples.  If we (the Bushes) were so concerned about people's democratic freedoms we'd be all up in Sudan's business right now.

But rest assured that *someone* is getting filthy rich off this war, be it Halliburton, Cheney, Bush...

In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2006/05/perks_of_privilege.html


----------



## TRG

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Who toppled Mossadegh in 1953 because he nationalized Anglo-Persian Oil? Who finances the Israelis? Who supported _and_ armed Saddam with chemical weapons to use against the Iranians in the 1980's? Who supported and financed the mujahideen against the Soviets in the 1980's? Who invaded Iraq?
> 
> No I think the US has a rather long history of meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.


 
Ok, I should have said size, influence, and previous foreign policy blunders. But if you are still in a snit about Mossadegh then perhaps you have lost your objectivity and are prone to indulge in bashing. There is a tendency in some places to lay the sins of our fathers at the feet of those who merely find themselves in a set of circumstances over which they have little control. Bashing, which is the topic of this thread, is an emotional and irrational response to political or social phenonomena. When you have become sufficiently infused with disgust so as to hate that which disgusts you then you have probably committed the cardinal sin of becoming what you hate. We all need to work at resisting the siren song of intolerance.


----------



## PandaX

Sepia said:


> If you don't support these things I don't put any blame on you. Generalizations are always stupid. And just as difficult to explain how someone claims to be supporting democracy and doing the opposite.



As far as I can tell they have been having democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq since how many decades?  Who was responsible for that?


----------



## PandaX

Sepia said:


> Questions:
> 
> How many wars have you heard of where it was not basically about money?
> 
> What should be the idea of fighting extremists of any sort in a Vietnam war like manner that is inevitably going to develop more hatred against Americans - and maninly concentrate the fight in regions with a lot of oil?
> 
> If it were about democracy why did hardly anone show any reaction to killing of a couple of million people in Africa some years ago? Isn't genocide the gravest violation of democratic rights?
> 
> -------
> 
> And a bit of history:
> 
> Cuba had a democracy before Batista.
> Batista was had the support of the USA and the Mafia.
> And they call Castro a dictator.


 
Wars are often fought for more than one strategic reason. To say or suggest it is all about oil is silly. With the $350+ billion dollars America has already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan surely one could say that money could have been invested in alternative fuels research with the likely outcome being viable alternative fuel technology. 

I aso always find it interesting when a German argues against the Iraq war when they are the beneficiaries of one of the three biggest success stories of American intervention and rebuilding.


----------



## cherine

This thread itself is an example of mutual bashing between forer@s.
So, to keep the friendly and warm atmosphere that's so dear to all of us, I think it's better to close this thread.

Thank you all .


----------

