NewsWeek's latest Anti-American Cover Page

[EdWort]

Just asking: what, in your opinion, constitutes "anti-American"? If it portrays the some aspect of the country in a negative light, is that automatically anti-American to you? The reason I ask is that, as of late, there seems to be the tendency to wield the blunt weapon of "You're being anti-American!" against anything that reports any negative aspects of our country---and believe me, there are negative aspects of America, love it though I may.

For instance, a form of blatant uninformed anti-Americanism, in my opinion, would be the stereotypical European view of us as big, fat, dumb, uncultured blowhards. It's a form of blind anti-nationalism---almost as dangerous, IMHO, as blind nationalism.

On the other hand, an example of a well-thought-out criticism of this great nation would be a story decrying the problems inherent in our massive military-industrial/welfare-warfare complex...however, such a criticism would probably be dismissed as some (Hannity, I'm looking in your general direction) as "anti-american", when it is clearly not.

So the real question to ask, is, does the story back up the cover, or is it just an america hate-piece. I haven't read it yet, but from what many are saying, it's not a hate-piece.

The title of thread points to the cover of Newsweek which is no different than the Time cover a while back insulting WWII soldiers. Both are anti-American and insulting. That's the main crux.

The article in itself still attempts to make the point that other countries are passing us by and we are in a period of decline, all of which I disagree. Those developing countries are successful because of our technology, universities, our monetary aid, our massive accessible market, and our freedoms and liberties (Which are envied around the globe). None of these points are made in the article.

 

[Cugel]

Do you really think we need to subsidize other countries to keep our economy afloat?

If I get my economics right, the rest of the world subsidizes the US economy. China especially.

 

[EdWort]

The first line of the book this is taken from kind of spells this out - "This is not a book about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else". And the article makes a clear (and I think valid) distinction between anti-Americanism and post-Americanism, which are two very different things.

True, but the cover of Newsweek leads the reader to believe otherwise, hence the title of the thread.

 

[Evan!]

The title of thread points to the cover of Newsweek which is no different than the Time cover a while back insulting WWII soldiers. Both are anti-American and insulting. That's the main crux.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. You say "both are anti-american and insulting", as if that's a self-supported declaration. It's not. Again, all I was asking you was, what constitutes "anti-american" in your opinion.

The article in itself still attempts to make the point that other countries are passing us by and we are in a period of decline, all of which I disagree.

Okay, you disagree. Your disagreement with the points in the article doesn't make it "anti-american"

Those developing countries are successful because of our technology, universities, our monetary aid, our massive accessible market, and our freedoms and liberties (Which are envied around the globe). None of these points are made in the article.

Actually some of those points ARE made in the article. Regardless, I think it takes a heaping of nationalism with a side of hubris to make the logical leap from "I disagree with the argument, and the author left out a few points which I feel are pertinent" to "it's anti-american". In my view, by making that leap, you're unfairly ascribing malice.

My point, in other words, is that disagreeing with an article is one thing, but the "anti-american" card is used unfairly probably 90% of time...usually in an effort to discredit or disqualify certain arguments or points, without going through the trouble of actually addressing much of the substance therein. IMHO, when people pull the "anti-american" card, most of the time it smacks of an attempt to circumvent a debate on the actual substance of the issue and cut to something a little more "dumbed-down": you hate 'merka! I'm not saying that you're doing that, but I will say that I find most of the "anti-american" dismissals to be a bit intellectually dishonest.

 

[EdWort]

IMHO, the cover is anti-American. I've stated that several times and it's the title of the thread.

I then reiterated what I believe is missing from the article. While the article can be well thought out, researched, and whatever, it still neglects to reflect the reasons WHY those countries are successful and leaving America in the dust as they want the reader to think.

 

[mr x]

Those developing countries are successful because of our technology, universities, our monetary aid, our massive accessible market, and our freedoms and liberties (Which are envied around the globe).

There is sooooo much wrong with that statement, particularly the bolded parts. But as the old song goes:

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

 

[EdWort]

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

Yeah, the songs works up there too.

 

[mr x]

Ahh but we are- Terrorism is in its own way a super power. How do you kill/stop something that is deeply rooted in culture and religion? How do you kill something with no real structure? Something that does everything it can to blend into the civillians? Use our laws of war against us? Terrorism keeps its people ignorant, tire, hungry and gives them an Ideal to kill for. In its own right it is a superpower that we trained. Thes guys use our tactics and know our rules against us.

"Do beating drums, and flying colours, purge a band of robbers and murderers of all guilt? Does it signify as to the nature of the crime, whether he who commits it wears a red coat or brown? whether he holds a painter's brush in his hand, or a general's truncheon...are we, because our armies are not so large not so well armed or disciplined as the English, and their clean-handed friends the Hessians - are we, I say, to sit down, and suffer our throats to be cut tamely? Every American, who believes his cause to be a just one, ought to exert himself in whatever way he can be serviceable to his country. If in the field, let him carry arms; if not, let him light a torch."

History always seems to come back to haunt, it's just human nature.

 

[mr x]

Yeah, the songs works up there too.

Yeah, but I know what the line means. You show me one emerging country you've helped so much, and I'll list two you've screwed with beyond excuse.

 

[olllllo]

Ed. I'm really not sure that it's relevant how or why another country is able to compete with the US at this point. It really doen't bother me that an article didn't cite such credit.

The point really is what do we propose to do about it?

And mr x, Ed hasn't personally screwed beyond excuse any countries that I'm aware of.

 

[z987k]

Just finished reading the article, and I really liked it. I can't see one bit of anti-Americanism in it. It raises some great questions, and I really liked the part where he was asking what the hell all of us are afraid of. Most of all I think it points out that people's lives around the globe are becoming much better than they were just 20 years ago, and honestly, I think that's great. I don't think we're in any danger of losing our status, we spend way to much on the military for that and honestly, we have the most brilliant people here. When it comes down to it this country has always found a way to prevail.

Notice how it points out that these up and coming countries have no hostile intentions, not only do they know they can't win, but why fight when you can become rich?

More broadly, this is America's great—and potentially insurmountable—strength. It remains the most open, flexible society in the world, able to absorb other people, cultures, ideas, goods, and services. The country thrives on the hunger and energy of poor immigrants. Faced with the new technologies of foreign companies, or growing markets overseas, it adapts and adjusts. When you compare this dynamism with the closed and hierarchical nations that were once superpowers, you sense that the United States is different and may not fall into the trap of becoming rich, and fat, and lazy.

I don't agreed with the last sentence, as I believe there is no way in hell we will fall into that trap, but the rest is so true.

 

[mr x]

And mr x, Ed hasn't personally screwed beyond excuse any countries that I'm aware of.

I didn't mean him personally, I meant the American government.

 

[olllllo]

I didn't mean him personally, I meant the American government.

I got it, you got it, I hope Ed got it.

Not everyone gets it and it starts to come off the rails.

 

[quickerNu]

Yeah, but I know what the line means. You show me one emerging country you've helped so much, and I'll list two you've screwed with beyond excuse.

I'll take you up on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
It is estimated the green revolution itself saved at least a billion people from famine.

Next- what did people like living under better- soviet style oppression or the democracies we helped inspire, build, protect and guide before, during and after the cold war?
How hard was it to get Saaz hops 30 years ago?

 

[mr x]

You aren't taking me up by quoting Wikipedia. Give me a country, I'll give you two back.

 

[quickerNu]

Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania, Turkey, Israel, I can go on and on. Pretty much the entire old soviet eastern bloc, and our Nato allies. I am wondering who we have screwed so badly.

I am far from saying we are perfect. I think the US has made the mistake in the past of thinking immediate democracy is best for all people. I think there has to be a certain minimum level of education, communicating, and infrastructure before a people can govern themselves effectively. If it is too early in a countries development, power hungry people with ill will dominate. When we "screw" a country- if you look closely, a few greedy ppl in that country usually cause the problems themselves.

We have caused far more good in this world than bad. If you disagree with me, I hope you are using your constitutionally guaranteed rights to speak out loudly and publicly to change our evil ways. I hope you are running for office, organizing other citizens to help. There isn't a big bad US government- just a you and me. For the people, of the people, by the people.

 

[mr x]

I am wondering who we have screwed so badly.

Guatemala
Costa Rica
British Guiana
Haiti
Ecuador
Greece
Phillipines
Iran (1950s)
Congo
Ghana
Uruguay
Chile
Bolivia
Angola
Zaire
Jamaica
Nicaragua
Albania
Bulgaria

The people in these countries don't forget. We could both go on and on I'm sure. Hardly matters, we both made our point.

 

[quickerNu]

Yep, we politically screwed up in most of those countries at some point in time. However, I still believe most of them are better off today than they would be without us, our food, our medicine, ect. But yes, point clear.

 

[PeteOz77]

Seems to me that MANY countries send their students to America to go to University. They then take what they have learned back home to better their home countries. I have no concrete numbers, but I would really be surprised if it weren't hundreds of thousands of international students.

American has NO need for foreign students, and could very easily deny them student visas, but they don't.

You say these countries don't easily forget US intervention. GOOD! Let's just hope they remember the good along with the bad.. America saved Australia's A$$ in WWII. The Japs had already invaded and were running over the country. America came in and booted them out. What USA had to gain could not have possibly been as great as what they put at risk. Positive US Intervention has happened in MANY countries, but it never gets mentioned.

My belief is that the majority of the countries that don't like USA are jealous as HELL. I know this firsthand. Aussies love to ***** about America as well..but seem to do as much as they can to achieve the same level of luxury and excess as "The Yanks"

 

[mr x]

Seems to me that MANY countries send their students to America to go to University. They then take what they have learned back home to better their home countries. I have no concrete numbers, but I would really be surprised if it weren't hundreds of thousands of international students.

American has NO need for foreign students, and could very easily deny them student visas, but they don't.

Same as Canada.

Aussies love to ***** about America as well.

Maybe they have their reasons. Look at your elections from 73-75. Vote as we say or else.

 

[PeteOz77]

Same as Canada.


Maybe they have their reasons. Look at your elections from 73-75. Vote as we say or else.

If you are referring to the Dismissal of Whitlam in 75, yeah that's a pretty good reason to ***** about USA. Some say the CIA was involved (much as they had toppled other governments that wouldn't play ball with them) when Whitlam refused to send troops to Viet Nam. However, it was the Queen that forced that to happen, via the Governor General, and had a lot more to do with Whitlam's social programs and his inability to convince the senate to play ball with him.

 

[mr x]

However, it was the Queen that forced that to happen, via the Governor General

It's my understanding that the Governor-General, while appointed by the Queen, made the decision without royal influence to bring down the government of Whitlam. John Kerr was also a well known individual in various CIA front organizations.

 

[PeteOz77]

It's my understanding that the Governor-General, while appointed by the Queen, made the decision without royal influence to bring down the government of Whitlam. John Kerr was also a well known individual in various CIA front organizations.

That's the way I would have spun it as well, thus the Queen isn't tarnished by the incident. I do find it hard to believe that the GG made the decision without Royal approval...but I guess History Books don't lie

 

[mr x]

I do find it hard to believe that the GG made the decision without Royal approval...but I guess History Books don't lie

The queen is pretty much absent from any political decisions with regard to the governor-general in this country. All she does is appoint the person she is told to appoint. Other than that, what can she do? And if she ever did try to do anything, she would have to be instructed by others what to do. You get to the same point, you just take the long road.

 

[Fingers]

The queen is pretty much absent from any political decisions with regard to the governor-general in this country. All she does is appoint the person she is told to appoint. Other than that, what can she do? And if she ever did try to do anything, she would have to be instructed by others what to do. You get to the same point, you just take the long road.

Not true, mr x. The GG has the job of ensuring the country has a functional government. If the PM wants to dissolve Parliament on a non confidence motion, the GG can refuse or can simply tell the opposition to form government. For the most part it is a figurehead position, but there is some real power there too.

*edit* Sorry, I misread. I thought you were saying the GG has no political authority, not the queen. As you were.

 

[Danek]

American has NO need for foreign students, and could very easily deny them student visas, but they don't.

Actually, that's not true. PhD students and postdoctoral researchers carry out huge amounts of work in research labs all over the world, and American institutions get great benefit from the foreign researchers they recruit. The reason so many choose to go to the US is because it has more research funds than almost anywhere else, not because you get a better education (in fact, I think until you get to postgraduate level, American education is slightly behind places like Australia, Japan and western Europe).

 

[PeteOz77]

This is what I LOVE about online forums. No matter WHAT your opinion is, if you put it forth in a public forum someone will definitely stand up and take the opposite viewpoint. It would be pretty amazing if everyone who reads these threads agreed on anything AND.... It only takes one person to dispute you to make you wrong! (in their opinion)

My point was that if America decided to stop ALL foreign trade and ALL immigration as of tomorrow, If they decided to bring all of their troops home and close down all foreign military bases, if they stopped sending relief to any other countries around the world, they could be self sufficient and get along just fine. Would they have the same lifestyle and creature comforts? maybe, maybe not, but they would do just fine. Not many countries have that ability.

I'm not saying "AMERICA RULES!!" because I don't believe that, but I DO believe that with all their faults and foibles, they are a very good neighbour to most of the rest of the world... except Iraq and Afghanistan..because they are responsible for the world trade centre bombings.








That last bit was joke, OK?