What's with US vs Europe?
I think I may have missed something. It's possible...Im new to these types of sites (and easily distracted).
But doesn't the 'My country right or wrong' 'You hate us more than we hate you' feeling so often seen on the posts here (and on UK news sites) seem a little simplistic and parochial?
I expect most of the world, (those outside G8) a large number of whose people have never even used a phone, would find it hard to distinguish between us. Aren't we ALL the winners and they the losers?
Could someone tell me who (and why if poss) I am supposed to hate, and what any Government has ever done in my name that I am supposed to be so proud of? I'd like to join in.
But doesn't the 'My country right or wrong' 'You hate us more than we hate you' feeling so often seen on the posts here (and on UK news sites) seem a little simplistic and parochial?
I expect most of the world, (those outside G8) a large number of whose people have never even used a phone, would find it hard to distinguish between us. Aren't we ALL the winners and they the losers?
Could someone tell me who (and why if poss) I am supposed to hate, and what any Government has ever done in my name that I am supposed to be so proud of? I'd like to join in.
Comments
<strong>I think I may have missed something. It's possible...Im new to these types of sites (and easily distracted).
But doesn't the 'My country right or wrong' 'You hate us more than we hate you' feeling so often seen on the posts here (and on UK news sites) seem a little simplistic and parochial?
I expect most of the world, (those outside G8) a large number of whose people have never even used a phone, would find it hard to distinguish between us. Aren't we ALL the winners and they the losers?
Could someone tell me who (and why if poss) I am supposed to hate, and what any Government has ever done in my name that I am supposed to be so proud of? I'd like to join in.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When we share so many values, we try to differenciate ourselves and show our differences rather our common value, add a pinch of intolerance and stupidity and you will obtain flamewars.
In fact we should be happy (we are lucky) and proud (it is from our responsabilitie to make it last) to belong to democratia.
I consider it more to be a debate: USA vs Europe. Some folks tend to make it a shouting match, though.
<a href="http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1021464445346"; target="_blank">BRET STEPHENS'S EYES ABROAD: Last refuge of scoundrels</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May. 16, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the man who once said that there was "no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence of the gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust" also thinks America is "a leading terrorist state."
Here is where any intelligent discussion of anti-Americanism must begin.
The man, of course, is Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and author, most recently, of 9-11, which in just a few weeks has sold more than 100,000 copies. According to Chomsky, "we can think of the United States as an innocent victim only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies." The professor is also at work organizing a divestiture campaign against Israel, which, like the ayatollahs of Iran, he sees as the Little Satan to America's Big Satan.
None of this is new for Chomsky, who for decades has staked identical positions in such books as What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Manufacturing Consent and Deterring Democracy. Nor is it surprising that in a profile last week in The New York Times, Chomsky was described merely as a "contrarian" and "political provocateur" with a "distinctive perspective." To be anti-American has long been such a respectable posture in Western political discourse that not only does it fail to raise eyebrows, it even serves to camouflage the entire package of Chomsky's views. If, as Samuel Johnson noted, patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, then anti-Americanism must be the last refuge of anti-Semites.
WHAT IS it that makes anti-Americanism, alone among ugly political fanaticisms, respectable?
Asked by Richard Nixon in 1975 what he considered the main legacy of the French Revolution, Mao Zedong is said to have quipped, "it's too soon to tell." No longer. The French Revolution created the Left, in all its incarnations from Jacobism to communism to socialism to social democracy. That is its legacy. And as Irving Kristol has pointed out, boiled down, what the Left today stands for is anti-Americanism.
The explanation for this is offered by Susan Dunn, a professor of French literature and the history of ideas at Williams College. In Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light, Dunn shows why the American and French revolutions, both the products of the Enlightenment, both linked by history, and one the inspiration for the other, ended by following such radically different trajectories.
Speaking historically, the answer is that the revolutions aimed at very different things. "The kind of unity cherished by the French," Dunn writes, "was something quite alien to the American mentality. After centuries of the wrenching inequality of a rigid, elitist caste system, revolutionaries in France hungered first and foremost for equality. While the Americans' driving passion was for freedom, in France people longed for a nation of equal citizens....
"Tumult, division and competing interest groups in the United States," Dunn continues, "versus concord, unity, and community in France. Here were the antithetical concepts of democracy and nationhood that shaped the core values of both revolutions."
The division here is stark, all the more so given the original apparent sympathy of aims between the two revolutions. Of the Declaration of Independence, the philosophe Condorcet wrote that it was "a sublime exposition of sacred rights that have too long been forgotten"; America, a Parisian paper editorialized in 1789, was "the hope and the model of the human race." But the French soon grew disenchanted with the American model, so much more limited in its aims than what the French wanted. "Why speak of the best that exists?" another philosophe, Dupont, asked in 1788. "Why not speak of the best that is possible?" "O Nation of France," added Estates General representative Rabaut Saint Etienne, "you are not made to receive example, but to set it!"
The French did indeed set the example: with Robespierre's reign of terror, followed by 18 years of Napoleonic war-making, followed by the return of the Bourbon monarchy, followed by a return to Bonapartism, followed by five successive and chronically unstable "republics," not to mention the Vichy regime. Meanwhile, Americans have plodded forward under the same form of government, not without its challenges or its drama but philosophically a bore.
Taken side by side, it was, according to American founder Gouverneur Morris, a case of "genius instead of reason... experiment instead of experience... lightning [instead of] light."
I OFFER this historical excursion in an attempt to help explain why anti-Americanism continues to occupy a kind of moral high ground even as its advocates are given to the most incredible furies. Because the French vision of revolution offers the "best that is possible" - the promise of humanity radically transformed and reoriented toward "concord, unity and community" - it acquires a moral stainlessness not to be tainted by the totalitarian means undertaken to achieve it. By contrast, the vision of the American founders takes as its starting point the unshakable mediocrity of mankind; it aims low to meet an easier target. If men were angels, says Madison in The Federalist, there would be no need for government. There is no provision for angels in the American scheme.
To this day, the ideological battle between the two revolutions continues unabated, placing anti-Americanism, along with anti-Semitism, as the most enduring phenomena of Western cultural and political life. That's no accident. Jews and Americans alike are improbable success stories, and so the target of other people's envy. Jews and Americans have also stood in the way of utopist fantasies of Christian millenarians and secular revolutionaries. Both these points are well known.
At a deeper level, too, both Jews and Americans are viewed as betrayers. The Jews, of course, "betrayed" Christ. And America has betrayed the promise of its own revolution, by failing to match the heady expectations of its erstwhile fellow-travelers. "To betray, one must first belong," said Kim Philby. It comes as no surprise, then, that Chomsky, the ardent anti-Zionist and barely closeted anti-Semite, is himself the son of Zionists. To read him on the subject of Israel is like listening to a man discuss his ex-wife.
The same holds true for another notorious anti-American, Henry Adams. Writing about him in My Love Affair With America, Norman Podhoretz observes, "Having been a noble republic governed by distinguishing figures like his own ancestors, America in Henry Adams's characteristically bilious view had been stolen by a whole new class of businessmen. Under these usurpers, America had degenerated into a country that worshipped only money and despised the higher things in life."
But there was more. "In his youth," writes Podhoretz, "Adams entertained dreams of following his great-grandfather John Adams and his grandfather John Quincy Adams into the White House some day. But he was one of those people who lacked, for better or for worse, the qualities it took to pursue a political career in a democratic society... Instead of accepting this or blaming himself, however, Henry Adams blamed America." Put another way, America - again, like the Jews - was the scapegoat. Anyone who listens to the routine denunciations of US foreign policy in European and Third World capitals knows that here, too, nothing has changed.
ALL THIS said, I still find anti-Americanism difficult to fathom fully.
Maybe it's because I'm an American and so am blinded to the faults of my country. But that can't be right: From Adams to Chomsky, the United States has produced more than its share of passionate anti-Americans. Nor is it that I don't understand what anti-Americanism is ostensibly about. I have lived more than half my life outside the US, both in Europe and in the Third World, so I've seen America through foreign eyes.
I understand, for instance, the contempt for the artefacts of American culture, from Burger King to Britney Spears. I understand the poor impression Americans often make when traveling abroad, with their famous ignorance of local circumstances, mores and languages. I understand the resentments that accrue when civilizations with deep roots find themselves retreating in the face of America's shallow and fast-moving one. I understand the resentments of local business elites losing market share to US multinationals. I understand the impression made by a president whose command of English compares unfavorably to that of my erstwhile neighbors in Mexico. I understand the case to be made against US support for nasty autocracies in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I understand Chomsky's critique of a manipulating media that "manufactures consent" from the masses to the powers that be. I understand the view that a balance of power is the normal state of affairs in the world, and that American hegemony brings with it possibilities of abuse.
I understand all this, but I don't understand. And I don't understand because, at root, anti-Americanism is not a political platform. Anti-Americanism is a neurosis, both personal and cultural. It is a close cousin of anti-Semitism, and it is a cover for anti-Semitism. It is a mixture of a sense of betrayal, of envy, of exaggerated expectations born to collapse into cynicism, of a self-deception that turns, as it so often does, personal failure into political rage, and of what Friedrich Nietzsche rightly identified as the spirit of resentiment. It will remain with us, just as anti-Semitism will remain with us, so long as Americans and Jews exist on this earth, and it will have to be combatted if Americans and Jews are to remain on this earth.
Israel need desperatly the help of US, so they 'll try to find all kind of arguments in order to reinforce this friendship. I am disapointed to see such article in a respected news like the Jerusalem post. The foreign policy of Israel seems to be : beeing the best friend of US and diabolize europe. I don't think in this way they will solve their problems. They'll better try to explain time after time their policy, like some people are doing on these boards, rather to say that any criticizes are coming from antisemitic countries. These tendency of a portion of Israelis will leeds Israel to be more isolated. As a man who like Israel this attitude worry me.
It's true that US revolution was much more a success than the french one, but the background where very different and should not be compare or very carefully.
Dispite the author said USA and France where friends in all the war from the beginnng of history : a typical anti-american attitude.
Some points of these article are interesting (yes i agree France was more interested by equallity and US by liberty : you are more interested by what you need the more) but it's just a fraction of a whole painting. Is there any reference in these article for the strong and engaged support of Beaumarchais for US ? : not a word, Lafayette : who is it ?
This article is just the half portion of the picture : the dark one.
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
Now why are Pakistan and India fighting? Who ****ed up Vietnam in the first place? Who wanted NATO in the first place because they were too lazy and ineffective to defend themselves in the first place? Oh and who was it that killed all those Jews while other countries stood by and helped?
Fact is you find reasons not to like the US. While you ignore your own deadly flaws.
<strong>Oh BTW could someone tell the EU to stop funding terrorism against the Jews. Europe has a hard time remembering not to kill Jews. You all need to work on that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a lie and a diffamation. I will cite you some of the countries who fund terrorism agains the jew : Iracq, Saudi Arabia (one of the best allies of the US : but contrary to you i will not made stupid conclusion at the light of this fact), Syria ...
Futhermore, when G.W Bush visit France and meet Chirac, they speak of cooperation in the war against terrorism, never ear accusations that EU help terrorists.
And for the last sentance, i have no lesson to take from you, me and any of my ascendant family. One of my grand-father was in jail during WW2 the other was a resistant, who helped many people including some jews.
Nazi where intolerant people, full of hate. You are full of hate and intolerant (or did a member of your family was murder by the nazi during WW2 ?), Scott, i wonder what you are able to do in extreme circumstances : if you belong to the oppressed side you will certainly be an heroe, in the other case ... the debate is open.
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
I didn't come up with this but I don't remember where I heard or read it. I agree with it, though. The U.S. is religious, miltarily robust, and nationalistic in it's world-view. Europe is secular, militarily weak and post-nationalistic in it's world-view. That's basically the root of the conflict between Europe and the U.S.
re: scott's article
The anger that has arisen here because of Bret Stephen's charge of anti-Semitism as an enduring phenomena of Western political life has deflected the debate away from the primary subject matter of the piece: Europe's anti-Americanism. Both are facts. There's no gainsaying either the existence or the respectability of both anti-Semtism and anti-Americanism in Europe. But anti-Semitism predates the French Revolution. Anti-Americanism doesn't. If the "weltanschauung" of the French Revolution failed to uproot anti-Semitism, it does seem to nurture anti-Americanism.
Powerdoc, anti-Semitism also predates the founding of the Jewish state. You seem to be suggesting that anti-Semitism is specifically linked to the policies that Israel pursues. In a way similar to the way that Munbo Jumbo attempts to excuse anti-Americanism you come close to excusing anti-Semitism.
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
This is a lie and a diffamation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're classic. I give you example of how your media spreads anti-Semitic lies and you brush them off. Then you try to claim that my truth about the EU funding terrorism is slander.
Here's your proof.
From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110001670"; target="_blank">Best of the Web May 6, 2002</a>
<a href="http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1020337092723"; target="_blank">Another Post report adds</a> that "the Palestinian Authority has used tens of millions of dollars it received from donors such as the European Union to finance terrorism, while Saudi Arabia has given a total of $550,000 in the last year to more than 100 families of Palestinian terrorists." <a href="http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1020670651951"; target="_blank">The EU denies the charge</a>: "The European Commission has imposed very stringent conditionalities throughout its programs and assistance it provides," spokesman Gunnar Wiegand tells the Post. "The money essentially serves to support education .Â*.Â*. and other essential services." Would that be education in "Palestinian cultural heritage" perchance?
The French will poo poo the US on it's race record and then respond to anti-semitic attacks in it's own country by blaming Israel and telling them to stop the pro Israel demonstrations. Quite a stand for freedom France
Time for Europe to take a good hard look in the mirror and try to get on the right side of this thing before it gets worse.
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: scott_h_phd ]</p>
Man, I dont ushualy agree with Scott, but he hit the nail on the head with this one.
<strong>
Man, I dont ushualy agree with Scott, but he hit the nail on the head with this one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
David Hasselhoff is inexcusable.
<strong>Oh and who was it that killed all those Jews while other countries stood by and helped?
Fact is you find reasons not to like the US. While you ignore your own deadly flaws.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: Mumbo Jumbo ]</p>
<strong>
This is a lie and a diffamation. I will cite you some of the countries who fund terrorism agains the jew : Iracq, Saudi Arabia (one of the best allies of the US : but contrary to you i will not made stupid conclusion at the light of this fact), Syria ...
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, Europe never supported terrorism.
They just like to call them "freedom fighters" before they support them financially and politically.
<strong>
David Hasselhoff is inexcusable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, we created him, but it was the Germans who loved him most, remember.
Anti-semitism is present anywhere just like any form of racism is. It isn´t an european phenomen and it is not a common thing here, esp. not compared to how people from muslim countries are treated.
An example: I really like Michael Melchior. Under normal circumstances he is a rational and sensitive fellow. But the current conflict have made him make wild accusations of anti-semitism. We just had our annual cross european song contest where Israel ended with very few points. According to Melchior it was because of Europes anti-semitism. Now I wont say that people didn´t have politics in mind when they voted but if we had a general anti-semitistic attitude why did Israel win about three years ago?
Israel and the palestinians are at war with eachother and according to most europeans Israel, as the strong part in the conflict, have a responsibility for those living in the refugee camps because they haven´t done enough for the last five years. You can agree with that or not but please don´t use arguments like anti-semitism when it has nothing to with it.
<strong>
Sure, Europe never supported terrorism.
They just like to call them "freedom fighters" before they support them financially and politically.</strong><hr></blockquote>