Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Anti-Every country?

To respect true NPOV, the only way this page would be acceptable would be to creat an anti-country page for every country. Although I suspect that those pages would become just as dubious as this one. It could realistically NEVER come to a NPOV. SD6-Agent 14:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. As has been repeatedly noted in discussion, prevelance is the critical criteria for inclusion not this or that justification (or rejection) of the idea. That is, you may think the notion of Anti-Americanism over-blown or dubious personally, but it is often discussed and has become a part of political discourse to the extent that, say, anti-Swedish or anti-Ghanian sentiment has not. Put another way, even if anti-American sentiment doesn't exist as the dangerous prejudice it is sometimes made out to be, the idea of anti-Americanism certainly exists or we wouldn't have 13 archives of discussion on the topic. Over time, perhaps the consensus will emerge that anti-Americanism is largely a fiction created by conservatives and the article will come to reflect that.
I do think a few more anti- pages make sense (if they don't exist already). For instance, Sino-Japenese attitudes toward another, anti-French sentiment, anti-Russian sentiment in the West and former S.U., historical anti-British (Empire) attitudes etc. Marskell 06:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But to what extent? Which countries deserve such a page and which don't? SD6-Agent 03:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a sidenote, one can note that there at this time actually exists an embryonic (sort of) anti-Swedish article at Finnish-Swedish relations. It will, however, surely develop in a slow pace and without the passions typical for this article. :-) --Johan Magnus 14:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Re. which countries: those that have (or historically had) hegemonic economic, military etc. power. As noted, I certainly think Russia and Japan are justified (see recent news on the latter). I don't think we need a hard and fast definition but if you can think of any that seem justified add them and see how they fly.
I think a critical distinction is between one-to-one resentments (Khazikis don't like Tajikis) and international phenomena (a significant percentage of the global pop has a problem with the U.S.). Finnish-Swedish relations, for instance, is bilateral not international and thus isn't really an "anti-" article. To justify an article in the style of this one, the resentment or prejudice ought to be present in different global spheres at different times. For Japan say, you have the economic resentment that was so widespread in the West in the 80's and 90's, the still lingering antagonism of its WWII conquerees plus a thousand odd years of conflict with China and Korea. With Russia there's centuries of ambivalence among Western Europeans, American attitudes during the cold war and, of course, the obvious mistrust amongst East Europeans and Central Asians. As it stands, the only other article that I know of is Anti-Australian sentiment which is quite weak and hard to justify. Anti-French sentiment in the United States needs to be edited and pared down to Anti-French sentiment (you can see my comments there if you want to try :) Marskell 20:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I find it ridiculous how when many Americans are confronted with anti Americanism, they simply point the finger at Bush, but what they dont realise is that its not just Bush. There are all aspects about American culture and people that the world doesnt like. Bush is not someone that has always been around. People hated Americans long before Bush surfaced. Besides, the American people are a direct reflection of Bush and his regime. There are many people who voted him into power. Some may even say that Bush might be moderate compared to some other Americans who are much more conservative and ruthless than Bush. One of the reason why there is so much anti Americanism is because of the American imperialist attitude.

Who has the right to determine a foreign culture's culture? If you don't like American culture or society, then ignore it. There are too many people who want to control the lives of others, and hate anyone who lives or thinks differently. This is simple prejudice and chauvinism in my view, ie. "my own s--- don't stink!". The root of irrational anti-Americanism is, IMHO, cultural chauvinism, ie. anyone who thinks or lives not according to your rules is stupid, wrong or just evil. In europe, this view is something of a venerable tradition, since in the past native peoples and Jews and gypsies were the "barbarians". After a 1000 years of genocide, pograms and conquistadors, you would think Europeans would have learned to question their own prejudices and xenophobia.

NO! Most people in the world do not hate Americans as individuals! Why do you insist on disgracing your continent by giving people the impression that they hate Americans as individuals? Hating Americans is just as wrong as hating Jews or blacks! I mean, people do not choose to be American - so why should they be hated for it? As a matter of fact, some people hate being American - because they hate being hated for being American.

Thier is a find boundry between hating americans like one would hate jews, blacks, italans (sp?), and that of dislikeing the way we run our political, military, and cultur in the line of feeling that we are superior to everyone else. I don't dislike individuals (unless they do something so stupid like kill innocent people and animals), but as a collective, we are vary dangerous. Ever heard of "collective thought"? It is like a mob, when one or some start tossing stones at others and pluder houses and business, the "mob mentality" takes over. I find that prominate here in my homeland.

--Admiral Roo 13:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I hate Bush and I am an American, and frankly I'm a little bit tired of people calling ME anti-american-- 03:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the US has fallen into the same trap as Nazi Germany. Disagree with Bush, and you're suddenly a traitor, unpatriotic, liberal and anti-American. It's easy to say "ignore American culture if you don't like it" when it is being shoved in your face on the TV, in the magazines and on your computer 24/7. I do choose to ignore American "culture" when I can - I use Linux, eat in Kochlöffel and watch more European films than I do American. The American film industry is capable of occasional flashes of genius in what seems to be a stream of moronic, brainless films, but many of these never leave the United States, because there's simply no money to be made in doing so. True American culture is not exported - the proper cowboy culture in the South, New Orleans, Independence Day celebrations as examples are what American culture means to me. McDonald's and such like does not constitute culture, just the desperate pushings of some desperate übercapitalists who seem to believe that money makes the world go round and pushing their substandard goods as "American" makes them a cultural icon. Unfortunately, they seem to have succeeded in making it appear that way. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above User (Jamyskis), who I believe to have brought to light something that bothers me to the extreme in America. A major supporting pillar to todays politics in the USA is the blind, stupid, questionless patriotism. Yes, I do mean it in a bad way, as there are "healthy " ways to promote and love one´s country. American governments in the past half century (actually even more) have been fueling its society with the idea that everything America does is the best, from goods production to movies produced and of course extenal affairs. "America does whats best for the world", and American scientists are the smartest, its military the bravest, strongest and best equipped. Point out that America has shortcomings and you are anti-American. Try to show dead or injured american soldiers in Middle East and youre a traitor. Publish some anti-war articles and you are the scum of the society. You dont agree to the military taking of Afghanistan? (Insert any other country bullied by the USA in the last 50 years here) So youre a traitor. The situation is such that it resembles musch of the paranoia created in the Cold War days, where americans accused of "comunnism" (as if it were a crime) were hunted in a legal witchhunt.

This ultrapatriotism, so common in all the facist states this planet has witnessed so far, leads to the idea that its people are superior to others; that its "culture" is better than others, its "historical importance" is greater than others, thus creating a sense that "its just fair" and "its natural and obvious" that such country should be te worlds Sheriff. Unfortunately for all that do not share that view (note I didnt mean "not americans"), history is written by the winner. The most perverse example I can remember is the bombing of Japan. While USA points the Holocaust and the millions killed by Stalin as the worlds most unhuman acts, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is completely left aside. As if millions of people, mostly civilian, and lots of elderly, women and children, hadnt died horrible deaths. Not to mention those who survived, who lived in a horrible contaminated, mutated live. Not to mention lives of those yet unborn, forever changed by that cowardly attack (The Pearl Harbor strike, counted and accursed for its "vileness" and "cowardice" was nothing compared to the amoral bombing of the cities).

The USA is, undisputed by far, the country who has killed the most foreingners in other countries, and the country with the most military interventions in other sovereing nations. As a bonus, is also the country who has most times defied the UN in worldwide scenarios, such as peacetasks, invasion forces, economic embargos and such. It does such things below the flag of "democraticising the world", bringing freedom and liberty and justice for all that cant fight for themselves. First, however, we should ask: Do these people WANT the system you plan to shove down their thoats? (some countries have millenia-long cultures and costumes that MIGHT be different from what you want them to become. Is it right to destroy that, calling it obsolete?) What makes americans think that THEY should do it? And what makes them think that what they want is best?

The prison camp in Guantanamo, the treatment of prisioners in Abu Graib, the civilians killed in Vietnam (and many other countries), the lack of commitment to the Kyoto protocol, thousands and thousands of nuclear warheads are just some of the reasons why the anti Americanism gains numbers everyday.

America comes out as an arrogant, ignorant, stupid, "big bully" type. And also as the "ball´s owner"...disagree with him and you wont be playing. Of course, as already stated in previous conversations, these are overall impressions of a nation, and not necessarily the presentaions of individuals. ~~LtDoc~~

I understand where you’re coming with your points. However I don’t think disagreeing with Bush especially makes you a traitor. In certain circles of ignorant people criticism of your country is seen as “helping the terrorists” or what not. This is only because to these people the threat of terrorism is very real, and for these same people they would rather sacrifice personal freedom for a chance at better security. I being a libertarian myself do not agree with this but at least understand where you are coming from.
One thing about your article that really angered me though was you drawing a parallel between the US dropping the A bomb on Japan and Nazi genocide. The two are so distant I can’t even begin to wrap my head around what you were thinking. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a death toll of about 240,000, the Nazi genocide systematically and mercilessly killed at least 11 million people! Not to mention while the holocaust was done for no reason other than some radical ideology, the Atomic bomb saved the lives of thousands of American solders who would have been thrown into a battle “that mirrored if not greatly exceeded the casualties of the Normandy invasion”.
“I think part of the problem is that the US has fallen into the same trap as Nazi Germany.”
Look out now George Bush is going to usurp power from free elections just like Hitler. Sorry again, but I know America and while the southern states are his biggest supporters if he even tried anything like that so much of America would mobilize instantly against him it would make the UN’s collective head spin.
If you feel like your being labeled as an anti-American for being against Bush, you must be trying really hard to find that small percentage of people who like Bush and like him so much that they’re going to label you an anti-American. Besides even if everyone who voted for Bush did that (Which of course they don’t) remember fifty percent of America agrees with you.

“The USA is, undisputed by far, the country who has killed the most foreingners in other countries, and the country with the most military interventions in other sovereing nations.”
This is brilliant too, you must have got this from that new website Sorry but until there’s some way you can prove this I’m going to have a hard time believing this given the extremely lengthy colonization period of Europe where systematic extermination of native inhabitants was common place.
You cite so many examples of what America has done wrong, but I myself look at America and see so much it has done right. While Europe sits in the hang over of two world wars losing all taste for exerting itself in what seems like almost any effort(Opinion) America bustles with economic prosperity and technological advances at a rate never before seen in history (FACT).

-Robtastic 8-12-2005

You seem to be a bit confused, since your first paragraph is an answer to the user who posted before me.
Anyways; yes I can set a parallel between the atomic bombs on Japan and Stalins USSR. Im sorry if it angers you, but they were both killings of innocent civilians in a completely unnecessary way. Also, I find it proposterous that you would imply that since only 240 thousand were killed, it wasnt "such a big deal" as the Nazi killings. Were are talking about human lives, for crying out loud! It was a deliberate bombing with a weapon of mass destruction in civilian cities!! Also, the killings by nazi germans were based on the eugenic theory of the arian race, which was enough reason (for them) to justify the murders (surely, Im against it as much as the next guy, but at the time, in Germany, it was enough). And by your comment of "the Atomic bomb saved the lives of thousands of American solders who would have been thrown into a battle", it leads me to the brink of exhasperation. Isnt it a soldiers job to go to battle?!? And why,(oh why!) you think that the lives of thousands american soldiers are worth more than those japanese that were killed?? What had the civilians had to do with that? And mind you, the official death toll from direct effects of the bomb reaches 240,000. Lets not forget that we are also talking about a radioactive bomb, in which there is damage done to generations and generations of people.
And you got me wrong. The trap I mentioned is the ultrapatriorism that US citizens so proudly present; the blind, unquestioning acceptance that many adopt while their supreme governor holds the largest military force on earth and does as he pleases. As for power questions, look in the recent history in the US and you will see that the Bush election against Gore is highly controversial, and its highly suspected that there has been some kind of fraud in the process. Aside from that, I did not claim that Bush is a new Hitler.
You are going to have a hard time believing that the US hold the world record for military interventions? Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion...but you might check a wiki page that goes by the title of "list of US interventions" (or something like it, dont remember the exact name of the page). Alternatively, you could consult books on recent history and read about Japan, Korea, Germany, Guatemala, Vietnam, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Laos, Cambodja...(the list goes on and on) and you will see the ever present US military. No, it has defidively not been taken out of You raise a good point tho, the kilings of native americans. Actually, the killings werent made by a single group ("Europeans" cover a lot of nations) but rather by spanish, portuguese, dutch, french, british and also citizens from the US, while also not forgetting amongst themselves (native americans) as well. Also, some of these might not have been intentional (as with the case of bacteria and other microorganisms brought by the exploradores), even if the vast majority was.
"You cite so many examples of what America has done wrong, but I myself look at America and see so much it has done right". Well, everybody is entitled to an opinion. Just be aware there are unkind words for describing either of the positions above. And while "America bustles with economic prosperity and technological advances at a rate never before seen in history" is indeed a fact, dont be so naive as to believe that it comes solely from the "righteousness" or "intelectual superiority".LtDoc 21:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Could someone please clarify the statement, "a single B52 Stratofortresses costs more than the entire United Nations budget for a whole year?" The numbers I've dug up seem to imply otherwise. -Weltall

That must be a mistake. Perhaps the author of that sentence meant a B-2 Spirit. Though the author might mean that a B-52 costs more than the US budgest expenditures on the UN every year. I don't care to go doing the research but my guess is that it's a lot closer, but the real point is that the United States spends far more on its military that is required for self-defence and often bemoans its "unfair" dues in international bodies like the United Nations. Sentence might be factually inaccurate, but living in Canada I can tell you that I've had more than one conversation over the years about the US debt to the UN and how it's been played like violin by the US government. While this far from sums up the range of other opinions and reasons for anti-Americanism it's visible actions like non-payment of UN dues (and most especially the fact that many Americans have gone on the record supporting this behavior) that have driven the wedges into the natural cracks that are present in any relationship.

To a world that values internationalism and has bought into the vision of one planet united, even if it is just a fantasy the United States often seems very out of step with the rest of us. Certainly there are others, but if you lined up the major western powers and played that sesame street game "one of these things is not like the others" most non-Americans, and probably most Americans for that matter, would pick out the United States without much trouble, the only difference would be the reasoning why. Gabe 18:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the line as it's definitely an error--I've read 74 million in three places which is 1.5 orders of magnitude less than the U.N budget. Even the B-2 Spirit at 2+ Billion is less than the U.N. budget. I have encountered somewhere around 3 Billion for the U.N. a few times but this reflects the core functions and staff and doesn't include payouts for peacekeeping shouldered by individual member states. I also thought the comment was a little disingenuous. "In Great Britain, a comparison is frequently made to demonstrate US military excess..." If you tracked down the figures for British nuclear subs, its own airforce etc. I'm sure you'd find some pretty hefty figures.
Removed: "In Europe, frequent comparisons are made between militaristic American society and the militant Third Reich." This is an exaggerated throw-away line (too much of this article is, alas). Marskell 23:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

About the article itself...

Since this is supposed to be a talk page about the article on Anti-Americanism, rather than the never-ending vomit war that actually debating what anti-americanism *IS*, I would like to bring that in and of itself up.

I think that, honestly, that page is not remotely neutral for the following reasons:

1) There isn't near enough talk on the page about the debate itself, which honestly, is a bit of a point of contention between the various sides on anti-americanism debate anyways.

2) The use of statements like "the percieved hypocracy..." To those of us who are rather disenfranchised, the phrasing is such that it indicated that our opinions are invalid. (It is not real, only percieved.)

3) There is also a great lack of discussion about the ambassadorism of americans themselves. Any individual who goes to a forieng country is, in essence, an ambassador for his own. The "percieved" oulook by a good chunk of the world is that americans are rude, and a lot of that comes from thier tourists. Where is the discussion, (for both sides!) on that element?

4) Other statements within the document such as "The War on Drugs is also considered an oppressive activity by many who are socially liberal," are both overly broad, and come from an american point of view. To wit: very few are against the so-called "war on drugs," but many *are* against it's universality. Pro-marijuana movements, both within and without America are examples of people who are not against the war on drugs, they simply don't view marijuana as an item that should be a controlled substance. Beyond that "those who are socially liberal?" That absolutely scearms bias. To a resident raised in a socialist country, the view that the so-called "war on drugs" is misguided or inappropriate may not *BE* a libral view. Discussions about what is liberal or not in the context of americanism are simply always going to illicit cries of "this article is not neutral!"

5)Other examples of complete bollocks are the broad spectrum comments that say people are anti-american because of any one belief. An example: "American free speech law has also become an international issue ever since the rise of the Internet as a medium of communication. Since the United States has far reaching free speech protection (under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution), Internet service providers based there can be used to spread messages to other countries where these are banned for moral, religious or political reasons. From the U.S. perspective, many Americans dislike attempts by other countries to extend their jurisdiction to American defendants whose alleged defamatory speech acts occurred over the Internet and were not targeted only toward those countries." Well, frankly, that is very narrow, and makes america look like the hero for standing up for free speech. What many of us dislike about america is that it HAS laws like this, makes a huge international issue out of other countries pulling stunts like censorship, and then goes and pulls crap like this:

Simply put: the sheer diversity of complaints against america means you can not possibly sum it up in a nice neat little package. The article should talk about THAT fact, rather than try to delinate them. To be neutral, the article CAN'T delinate them, because it's virtually impossible to do so without sounding as though you are taking sides.

Anti-americanism is disliking america for any of a great number of reasons. It is used by all sides of the debate for propaganda purposes and is so controversial we'll never get a secure definition of what anti-americanism IS, without bieng drawn intot he fight itself.

My view on the article

I myself am an "american". However, I have longed to move to another country because I agree with alot of the stuff in this article. I don't think that this article is "non-neuatral". I live in america, and I can tell you that this is a land of intollerance. Many times have I been accused of things because I am "diffrent". I also see many who are americans in america are in fact not vary knowledgeable about other cultures. I am sure my statements may seem "non-neuatral", but having the background I have, I have seen irrogance in both the government and in may citizens run rampent (sp?).

And again I forgot my sig. --Admiral Roo 13:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

As an American I apologize for any intollerance you experienced. Now read that first sentence and see how ridiculous it is...I as a single person can not apologize for the actions of my fellow countrymen. I don't know you or your problems but can tell you that just because you have encountered bad PEOPLE in your life does not mean that the country itself is at fault. Try moving to France or Germany and you will encounter bad PEOPLE that live in beautiful and culturaly rich areas as well.
This entire article is sick and overwhelmingly prejudiced against a group of people who only share a common land-mass and desire to make the best for themselves, but we represent the cultures of the entire world. I would argue that of any country to ever exist, America is the culmination of every kind of person whether you be gay or straight, white, black, indian, etc, etc. People in other countries may dispise us and have unmitigated hatred for who we are but it doesn't mean that US individuals should have to put up with this when they travel to foreign lands. Frankly all of this talk about the american tourist is total BS as far as my personal experience travelling the world has shown me. I encounter this Anti-Americanism when I travel and it is totally hypocritical and wrong but the majority of my encounters are fun and enjoyable. I don't blame the country I'm travelling through for the jerks that hate me b/c I'm American. Stop the blatant sterotyping! JShultz
I'm sure that very, very few people in the world actually dislike all Americans. If anything, I think it's a lie propagandated by the American right-wing media. As an American, I dislike many things about this country - and I really would like to move to Canada, someday. Right now, I have to say that I'm rather ashamed to be an American. However, I am trying to think positively, and I'm sure that less than 10% of the world actually hate every single American citizen. Perhaps, less than 1%, even. Anyway, I'm quite positive that this whole rhetoric about Americans being hated is just a lie fabricated by the American right-wing media. 16:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Having lived around the world, I say that people are essentially the same with regard to intolerance and selfishness. Accusing Americans, as if they are a unique human category, is ridiculous. And believe me -- intolerance is widespread, in every culture. Blaming only Americans of this seems discriminatory. Imagine 10 people are committing crimes, but the only one arrested is the black or Jewish or Asian one? What would you say? Fair???????
Not really that fair. But I would say in america, intollerance is more widespread then in any other part of the world. We are the largest place of capital punishment, have the largest prison population due to putting non-violent criminals behind bars rather then trying to rehabilitate them, and we are one of the few who ban gays from any sort of legal bond. Also, we are one of the few that disregard the environment, just look at us not signing the Koto (sp?) teraty.
Take a look at Iran/N. Korea and tell me they rehabilitate people or tolerate gays! Ridiculous to say America is the biggest offender or has the most widespread intolerance. We are a country composed of other countries and cultures, so people get in fights occaisionally over this stuff. Intolerant people are all over the globe, but rarley do you find such a diverse group in one place as in the US. Elsehwere you have a uniform mass of bigotted people living together and denouncing the "great satan" together. They may be idiots, but they do a good job of sticking by their guns as a group and of course they love each other because they all feel the same way about their uniform hatred of America. Anti-American feelings should be grouped under the subheading - Ignorant. As far as the environment goes, I think we have a ways to go here as well but you can't just put the breaks on the largest industrial super-power in the world. There are complexities far more subtle than simply failing to sign the Kyoto treaty, namely the millions of workers and their families who work in big business that are at the heart of the American economy (BTW, the senate rejected the treaty 95-0, so don't put all your misplaced blame on the Bush administration as many have been known to do). That is however typical of the uninformed who rant on and on about the US as the heartless overlord of the world...J Shultz 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and Iran and North Korea are part of the "axis of evil" if I remember, so America is striving to be just like them? I think the culture of intolerance in America stems from the same source as it does in some Middle Eastern countries - religious extremism. This is a subject that America has been trying to come to terms with for decades now, particularly since the hey-day of the KKK. The subject died down and Christian extremists were labelled as insignificant nutjobs in the 80s and 90s, at least until Bush came along, and suddenly the extremists had influence over the Senate and the White House. You are right, of course, in one respect - every country has its problems with bigots. Here in Germany we still have problems with Nazis (a minority, however, as laws are in place to keep them down). The Israelis in the past few years have had issues with extreme Zionists, although the Zionists have been weakened ever since Sharon decided to start taking other points of view into account. I don't think we need an introduction to Islamic Extremism. America, however, has done little to address the point of religious extremism in their own country. With regards to the environment, well, there's little to say about that. A population half the size of China, the world's second largest polluter, producing eight times as much pollution as them, says to me that something is wrong. As you say, the Senate rejected the treaty unanimously, suggesting that the problem with America is a much larger one that goes beyond the Bush administration - the problem that in the past 2-3 decades, America has turned from a democracy into an oligarchy. America's help would be welcome in producing a better world, but how much cleaning the muck off your own front door by being an example to the rest of the world instead of forcing ideals on other countries that America itself doesn't really appear to follow? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A good response with several valid points Jamyskis. Extremist religion really is a the heart of it, and I know that will just fire up more people in this debate. There is, of course, no way to ever wipe the religous biggots away, they are too entrenched. I was just discussing this with a friend, the cults evolve to religions and everyone thinks they are correct while at the same time hating (without thought) those who were not brainwashed as they were (my parents taught me about my God in his cloak and he must be the real deal, but your parents and their God with his robe are just wrong so I hate you). Blah! Extreme Christians hate Extreme muslims and there will be no thoughtful discussion, ever! Best the rest of us can do is work and think like logical people trying to make the best out of it. My original point with it all is that this article is totally crap and I was responding to the first poster who claims Americans are uneducated types. My point is that elements of every culture are that way. It's missing a good rebuttal that explains the fact that other countries feel this way because they MAY be misguided. That would be considered a NPOV violation while simply stating all the reasons America sucks is perfectly a-ok. I'm not saying the US is perfect, but some discussion of all the misplaced (religous) fanaticism would be nice. J Shultz 02:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


One thing which I have heard numerous times and which is not explicitely stated in the article is that the US "way of living" religion is often seen as Freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion: one can chose any religion he wants (preferably a variant of Christianism -- and preferably a variant of protestantism if one wants to have fair chances to obtain high positions), but atheism, or even agnosticism, are not well tolerated.

This is especially observable when wealthy evangelists from the USA go on their "evangelisation" trip to Europe and start talking about religion to people in the streets, a subject widely regarded as very personal.

I don't know how this could fit in the article though (I'd rather discuss this here before). Rama 13:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you American? I ask that because it sounds like you have the common "I've heard America is this way" idea. I'm an American, live in a nice city with many friends in different social classes and with different backgrounds and I would say that religion is totally on the back-burner with people choosing whatever they like and not dropping it on others. I personally feel religion is for the most part a crock, and when I discuss that fact I get a wide variety of replies and thoughts, but nobody is trying to convert me. If I see a televangalist on TV I just turn the channel, no big deal. Now as far as the midwest gos, I can't really speak from experience but my idea is that the US as a Christian fundamentalist factory is WAY overblown in the foreign press. We get sterotyped as a caricature of what we when you get a charcoal sketch of yourself at the beach and the guy draws your ears really big and has your head all mishapen to highlight your features, way overblown! I could say that I don't like all the German shit-porn videos that I know they are really into and that I should include a section on the Germany page about fecal-defecater-porn because it is so prevelant in their society when really that is kind of a personal thing, but I realize that Germany really isn't THAT into filming themselves shit on each other and I know it is an overblown viewpoint of Germans in America. Does that go too far to make a point? Sorry if I offended any Germans, totally for explanation sake :) Anyway, we need a rebuttal section first that highlights the fact that some of this is misconception propogated by ignorance of Americans and religous extremism too J Shultz 02:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You just made one more anti-American, Mr. Shultz. Karoschne 23:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rama is perhaps unwittingly revealing a major root of anti-American sentiment abroad. Ignorance. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't say that this is true exactly the way it is shown on some media. Just that lots of people percieve it this way, and that some traits in American Weltanshaung confort this perception. The "In God we trust", swearing on the Bible, religious proselytism abroad and other punctual details like this can give an overall impression which is the subject of the article. Rama 11:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great Quote

Recently, those who have criticized the actions of the U.S. government (myself included) have been called "anti-American." Anti-Americanism is in the process of being consecrated into an ideology.

The term "anti-American" is usually used by the American establishment to discredit and, not falsely - but shall we say inaccurately - define its critics. Once someone is branded anti-American, the chances are that he or she will be judged before they are heard, and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride.

But what does the term "anti-American" mean? Does it mean you are anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to freedom of speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias? Does it mean that you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?

This sly conflation of America's culture, music, literature, the breathtaking physical beauty of the land, the ordinary pleasures of ordinary people with criticism of the U.S. government's foreign policy (about which, thanks to America's "free press", sadly most Americans know very little) is a deliberate and extremely effective strategy.

- Arundhati Roy from Come September TitaniumDreads 08:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is blatantly biased..

"Anti-American sentiments are further aggravated by the ability of the USA to intimidate other countries with its vast, unnecessary arsenal of nuclear weapons"

Come on... That is ridiculous.. Atleast put a giant "OPINION" warning on your rhetoric next time.

  • Ok, I can see where you're coming from on that. I wrote that bit and I suppose it is a bit NPOV, sorry. The term "vast" can't really be disputed - the US has around 10,000 nuclear devices, far more than any other state. And as for "unnecessary", I hold to the argument that since the collapse of the Cold War, the US doesnt need these weapons. If, as can be reasonably assumed, wars in the near future are going to be small-scale, localised conflicts, or campaigns against terrorists, how exactly are nuclear weapons going to be useful? Nuclear weapons are only useful in global conflicts, and as the likelehood of a global nuclear war is now unlikely in the extreme, it seems fair to refer to the USA's nuclear arsenal as "unnecessary". But please, do state your arguments!  :) Rusty2005 5 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

vast is fine, unnecessary is not. Who are you to say the arsenal is unnecessary? This is supposed to be factual, and saying the nuclear arsenal is "unnecessary" is far from being factual at present time. Maybe in a 100 years you can say "The United States still possessed a vast nuclear arsenal, which ultimately proved to be unnecessary as (insert future developments here)" It is just not appropriate for something that is supposed to be objective. elchup4cabra

Other countries probably do think that the U.S. arsenal is unnecessary, and that's what's important in this article. But in this context, it sounds as if the unnecessity is fact, not an POV of anti-american people, so it can be reworded to be more NPOV. (My own POV is that while it may help, the U.S. is extremely hypocritical about it, trying to disarm other countries while still holding the largest arsenal in the world.) Xunflash 03:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. arsenal is both vast and unnecessary, and that is an objective statement. It is vast b/c Earth can be destroyed many times over with it. It is unnecessary because it far exceeds the combined military might of USA's proclaimed worse enemies--the so-called axis of evil. USA claims that even the hint of Iran approaching PEACEFUL nuclear capability is dangerous to world stability; yet its own 10000 warheads (presumably NOT designed for PEACEFUL use) are somehow justified and necessary. I think it's time to add USA to the axis of evil, it should be No. 1 in the list... Vive l'UE