Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing

[vanesch]

A prequel to this:
You give flowers and food to the bees so that they can grow and sting others and biscuits to the mad dogs so that they can bite others.
They get bored of biting others and since you have stopped giving them more food they come to get your children.
A few years later... the story from vanesch's post

I think you missed the essence of my analogy

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

El Hombre Invisible, a couple of people in this thread thought I was fingering them
...
We could use some levity.

And lo, you provided it!

 

[Andy]

Origionally posted by Evo
Actually a quick search came up with a few member's posts and showing them as examples would probably be embarrasing to them, so no, I'm not going to list member's posts. If you are curious you won't have too much trouble finding the posts. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is stay tuned, there will be more.

lol, i will own up now! but that was back in the days of entropy and mr robin parsons!

 

[Evo]

lol, i will own up now! but that was back in the days of entropy and mr robin parsons!

No, I had a few others in mind.

Where the heck is jimmy p? I'm about ready to disown him and adopt you instead.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ hasn't posted for a while. I guess he's gone off to lick his wounds or maybe he's just fallen off the limb he climbed out on. .

Russ has a job to do and frankly, this thread isn't even as important to me as the ones in the other forums. The politics forum provides me with some entertainment, but I care very little about what goes on here. I care even less about the opinions of me of people who don't even know me.

 

[russ_watters]

No-one in this thrad has actually posted anything along the lines of "I dislike the Americans".

Yes, I know. Very few people are as up-front about their biases as I am. They prefer pot-shots and insinuations to coming right out and stating their opinion explicitly. Its easier that way - when you don't make a specific statement, there is nothing to back up.

You are the only person here to actually dislike an entire nation based on whatever limited experience of them you have had.

Once again, that isn't what I said. Please go back and reread it because you have misrepresented it in every response so far.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a vocal minority (essentially the same as your 'Moral Majority', except that ours make sense) of radical francophone Quebecois who want to separate from Canada.

I didn't say it was a majority position, I just said it exists.

They do not, for the most part, want to join France. They want to become an 'independent' country that remains within our borders, uses our currency and military, and yet not be subject to our laws.

Ok... but why? Its cultural, isn't it? That's why Quebec is bilingual, isn't it?

 

[russ_watters]

Just in case anyone missed it the first time...

Everyone has biases, guys. Everyone has preconceptions. Everyone buys into stereotypes to one extent or another.

Russ I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they don't. You are one of a select few.

This is better than Dilbert, thanks.

 

[vanesch]

Its cultural, isn't it? That's why Quebec is bilingual, isn't it?

I don't know so much about Quebec, but my small native country (Belgium) also has 2 cultures having to live together, the minority (about 40%) being french speaking; and indeed, a serious problem with those people is that they have a kind of superiority feeling about their own linguistic culture which makes it harder for them to learn the other one. This resulted in a very complicated government structure for instance.
So I have more reasons to be anti-french than anti-american, if that were a reason. But again, I think it is silly to be anti-"an entire nation".
French speaking people are quite chauvinist about their culture and language... I know in fact only one other language and culture of which the native speakers often have the same attitude (no, it is not the Germans, and not the Spanish either) However, it has an advantage too. If you speak their language and respect their culture, they suddenly become very very kind and you are more than welcome with them. So it is very easy to get integrated with french speaking people: just speak french (even with errors). That cannot be said about any other culture, where you remain a barbarian for ever :-)

 

[Danger]

That's why Quebec is bilingual, isn't it?

The whole country is bilingual. Quebec just happens to be predominately francophone, and has language laws to help keep it that way, but only a very few individuals are impolite about it. It's like comparing the number of Mafia members to the total population of Italy.

 

[Smurf]

French speaking people are quite chauvinist about their culture and language... I know in fact only one other language and culture of which the native speakers often have the same attitude (no, it is not the Germans, and not the Spanish either) However, it has an advantage too. If you speak their language and respect their culture, they suddenly become very very kind and you are more than welcome with them. So it is very easy to get integrated with french speaking people: just speak french (even with errors). That cannot be said about any other culture, where you remain a barbarian for ever :-)

I think the French are very much misunderstood about this. It's indeed true that they can act Chauvanist, but I've never had a problem with them (during my three years living there), and I'll tell you why. I wouldn't call them arrogant, they don't insist on your speaking French, as long as you try, in other words, respect their culture. The French have to put up with huge amouts of arrogant and annoying british tourists all the time, and I'm sure you'll find that indeed the bigger the city, the more chauvanist the people will seem (Paris is the worst of course). When I first moved there I didn't speak barely any french, but the people would still be very nice to me even when I'd start conversations with "Bonjour... est que tu parle anglais?" (and if you don't know what that means it's no wonder you get heat from the french).

Meh, my point kind of got lost somewhere, basicly I don't think they act any worse than any other culture does towards foreigners. I don't think it'd be fair to expect anything more.

P.S. This isn't directed at you Vanesch, I'm just leading on from your post.

 

[Smurf]

I didn't say it was a majority position, I just said it exists.

Actually your exact words were "Frenh Canadians want to become an independant country". So not only did you imply they were a majority, you generalized that an absolute 100% wanted that. You need only look at the fact that the last referendum to leave Canada failed to realize that's false.

Ok... but why? Its cultural, isn't it? That's why Quebec is bilingual, isn't it?

Why? They feel the language (and partially the culture) is threatened by the overwhelming majority of anglophones. A really bad answer to the problem if you ask me.

And yes, as Danger said, the whole country is (officially) bilingual.

 

[vanesch]

I wouldn't call them arrogant, they don't insist on your speaking French, as long as you try, in other words, respect their culture.
...
P.S. This isn't directed at you Vanesch, I'm just leading on from your post.

I think indeed we're making the same point.

 

[Smurf]

How did we get here from Anti-Americanism?

 

[PerennialII]

Yes, I know. Very few people are as up-front about their biases as I am. They prefer pot-shots and insinuations to coming right out and stating their opinion explicitly. Its easier that way - when you don't make a specific statement, there is nothing to back up. Once again, that isn't what I said. Please go back and reread it because you have misrepresented it in every response so far.

Ok, I'm trying to grasp some of the differences here. Why being not "as upfront about their biases" isn't the good thing here ... Being able to focus on specific issues rather than immediately drawing borders and making it an issue you need to "win" with us against others mentality should be the whole point of discussion (and this makes Art's statement belonging to something else than Dilbert, or then it would make up a good strip anyways). This is something that I've a hard time understanding especially in "anti-Americanism" and related conversations, since if you've an opinion, that isn't anti anything but an opinion (a perception being repeated a great number of times in this thread). And an opinion is formed on the basis of "biases" for sure, but being able to discuss and reform your opinions - and not making it personal and drawing e.g. nation spanning parallels - is the kind of "non-biasness" we're talking here. Doesn't sound too difficult IMHO, it's the element of any meaningful discourse. How can't we get over this or what is breaking this part of the communication ?

 

[Art]

Russ has a job to do and frankly, this thread isn't even as important to me as the ones in the other forums. The politics forum provides me with some entertainment, but I care very little about what goes on here. I care even less about the opinions of me of people who don't even know me.

Reminds me of the story of Brer rabbit, brer fox and the gooseberries and this rather apt quote by Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks" Hamlet Act3 (not sure Brer fox was a bigot though)

 

[Andy]

Origionally posted by Evo
Where the heck is jimmy p? I'm about ready to disown him and adopt you instead.

lol, he's now a full time gambler, don't get chance to speak to him anymore, he's got new "friends". Adoption sounds good though!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Yes, I know. Very few people are as up-front about their biases as I am. They prefer pot-shots and insinuations to coming right out and stating their opinion explicitly. Its easier that way - when you don't make a specific statement, there is nothing to back up.

What a depressing world you live in. Maybe the reason why no-one on this thread EXCEPT YOU has claimed to dislike a particular people is... because they don't? This, of course, won't quite give you the safety in numbers you no doubt are hoping for by claiming everyone else in the world is just like you, but is probably closer to the mark.

Once again, that isn't what I said. Please go back and reread it because you have misrepresented it in every response so far.

You said you dislike the French. Not some of the French, not aspects of the French, not some French wines or french windows - you said the French.

 

[Art]

Just in case anyone missed it the first time... This is better than Dilbert, thanks.

For my reply ref part 1 of post no. 123 from El Hombre Invisible - Ditto

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Everyone has biases, guys. Everyone has preconceptions. Everyone buys into stereotypes to one extent or another.

Russ I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they don't. You are one of a select few.

I have to agree with Russ that this seems to be a rather absurd statement.

 

[PerennialII]

A world without objectivity is one where people can't formulate an independent thought. Although the specific nature of the "biases" is the problem in this case.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I have to agree with Russ that this seems to be a rather absurd statement.

Yes I agree, but justifying racism with this argument is equally absurd. It would be like Patrick Bateman justifying mass homicide by saying "Well, EVERYONE feels annoyed from time to time." Yes, we do all have biases, we do all have preconceived ideas and, in the absence of experience, we do all look for stereotypical behaviour in people. You can rationalise this in one of two ways: either believe your own ignorant guff and buy into these stupid generalisations, or realize that you are not really an authority on the subject and overcome them.
In my experience I have discovered two things.
1. People you meet that you have preconceived ideas about generally behave more like you than you expected. People find it very easy to assume a stance based on no experience, and hard to maintain it when confronted with the people they thought they already had pegged. In my experience, the most frequent example is homosexuals. I've lost count of how many of my straight friends had an inexplicable hatred of gay people that they couldn't maintain once they met my gay friends. I believe the same goes with race. The truth is, people are people everywhere.
2. People generally latch on to a negative stereotype of a certain people and, in cases where that stereotype proves true, feel that their opinion has been justified (see Russ' trip to Paris, not exactly a country representative of France as a whole). Thing is, EVERY country has these stereotypes. Are arrogant Parisians any worse than drunk British football hooligans, American rednecks or Dutch pickpockets working the Dam? People are very quick to point out the very worst in other cultures then plugging their fingers in their ears when anyone mentions their own.
That's two reasons why, while we may have preconceived ideas, only a fool would trust them.

 

[Andy]

I think we should just accept that not everybody likes everyone.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

But then one can't complain about anti-Americanism. The problem is, invariably the people who propagate ill-will towards one nation are the ones most upset about such feeling directed towards their own.

 

[Art]

I have to agree with Russ that this seems to be a rather absurd statement.

Russ used bias, preconceptions and sterotypes in the context of justifying his dislike of an entire race and even it's offshoots. I don't believe most people feel that way, certainly none of the people I personally know.

 

[Joel]

Ok, I'm trying to grasp some of the differences here. Why being not "as upfront about their biases" isn't the good thing here ... Being able to focus on specific issues rather than immediately drawing borders and making it an issue you need to "win" with us against others mentality should be the whole point of discussion (and this makes Art's statement belonging to something else than Dilbert, or then it would make up a good strip anyways). This is something that I've a hard time understanding especially in "anti-Americanism" and related conversations, since if you've an opinion, that isn't anti anything but an opinion (a perception being repeated a great number of times in this thread). And an opinion is formed on the basis of "biases" for sure, but being able to discuss and reform your opinions - and not making it personal and drawing e.g. nation spanning parallels - is the kind of "non-biasness" we're talking here. Doesn't sound too difficult IMHO, it's the element of any meaningful discourse. How can't we get over this or what is breaking this part of the communication ?

Excellent point a about the polarization, PerennialII. I want to add to this by making making a distinction between three types of anti-americanism.

When speaking about anti-anything I understand it simply as an uninformed, stereotypical opinion, a myth that is fostered by ignorant people. (Note the difference between a stereotypical and a biased opinion, the later is based on favoritism while the former is simply an irrational (negative) generalization.) This kind of anti-americanism is definitively condemmable and it does nothing but incite hatred.

Another understanding about anti-americanism seems to be that it is a biased opinion about america, an opinion that is more or less informed and that is based on someone's self-interest (ideological, real political, or whatever). These kinds of opinions could often be expressed with a lot more tact, but it can hardly be denied that politics is about competing interpretations and their acceptance.

Finally, I've seen anti-americanism used to label opinions that appear to have america's best interests in mind simply because they differ, there is no apparent bias against america (altough there may be internal bias, for example republic or democratic bias) or stereotypes involved. To use anti-americanism in this context seems to be simple mud slinging.

As I hope I have managed to illustrate, the tricky thing about using the anti-americanism (and anti-anything) label is that it can be used both to discredit dissent (third alternative) and to weed out persistent myths (first alternative). The second alternative is perhaps trickiest, because other interests must surely be voiced, but if they degenerate to simple bashing, they hardly have the desired influence (as it only becomes irritating).

There, my straw to the haystack.

 

[McGyver]

Sid Galt, why would you request discussion on a topic requiring referreral to a link and possible registration? I won't waste my time to view an external link, if you aren't willing to give your time to properly introduce its discussion!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Russ used bias, preconceptions and sterotypes in the context of justifying his dislike of an entire race and even it's offshoots. I don't believe most people feel that way, certainly none of the people I personally know.

The French are not a race, they are a country and a culture.

Russ has already pointed out that this assessment that he is a "racist" or that he "hates" all french people is inaccurate. He has been sure to elaborate on his original statement to clear up the confusion. Yet you and El Hombre seem to be making a field of calling him a racist or bigot. The majority of this thread has been reactionary name calling and it's entirely inane. Based on the comments here in this thread I would say it seems the two of you are guilty of the same closed mindedness you are complaining about... never mind I'll drop it.

At any rate.. Russ is neither racist nor bigot and I do not appreciate your, or anyone elses, insistence that he is.

 

[vanesch]

The French are not a race, they are a country and a culture.

Russ has already pointed out that this assessment that he is a "racist" or that he "hates" all french people is inaccurate.

Then what's the word for it ? Specific xenofobia ?

I think the criterium to find out whether you are anti-X or not, is to ask yourself, if I somehow have a choice to make between different things or people or whatever, some having an origin or a link to X, and others to Y, do I have a kind of a priori to avoid the X-related choice or not, for no other reason than that it is X-related. If that's the case, then you're anti-X.
In the case of Russ, say he's with a colleague and they meet two other engineers, one Japanese and one French, and they have to team up each with one of the guys, if Russ specifically prefers NOT to team up with the French, then he's anti-French. If he never considers driving a french car (and not because he happens to be fond of other brands but just because they are french) he's anti-french. If he is a-priori against each idea just because he knows it found its origin in a french mind, he's anti-french.

Using this criterium, I know I'm for sure not anti-american for instance. If Russ declares of himself to be anti-french, and if he agrees with the above definition (otherwise, I don't know what it means to be anti-X), then, with all respect, I find such attitude a sad mistake.

 

[Art]

The French are not a race, they are a country and a culture.

Russ has already pointed out that this assessment that he is a "racist" or that he "hates" all french people is inaccurate. He has been sure to elaborate on his original statement to clear up the confusion. Yet you and El Hombre seem to be making a field of calling him a racist or bigot. The majority of this thread has been reactionary name calling and it's entirely inane. Based on the comments here in this thread I would say it seems the two of you are guilty of the same closed mindedness you are complaining about... never mind I'll drop it.

At any rate.. Russ is neither racist nor bigot and I do not appreciate your, or anyone elses, insistence that he is.

Def'n of a race; - a tribe, nation etc.., a group of persons connected by common descent (such as French speaking people in Quebec and French people in France perhaps!). I suggest you consult a dictionary before contradicting me next time.
Russ' original mail was unequivocal so there was no 'confusion to clear'.

Now - a mea culpa: I'm anti-French. I'll admit it. Heck, I'm almost proud of it. I've been to Paris and Montreal and my experiences have shaped that opinion. France's "coalition of the unwilling" attitude has also shaped it.

So does this make me a "pot" for the anti-Bush/American's kettle? No. My dislike for the French and the liberal pseudo-intellectual crowd...

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The French are not a race, they are a country and a culture.

Russ has already pointed out that this assessment that he is a "racist" or that he "hates" all french people is inaccurate. He has been sure to elaborate on his original statement to clear up the confusion. Yet you and El Hombre seem to be making a field of calling him a racist or bigot. The majority of this thread has been reactionary name calling and it's entirely inane. Based on the comments here in this thread I would say it seems the two of you are guilty of the same closed mindedness you are complaining about... never mind I'll drop it.

At any rate.. Russ is neither racist nor bigot and I do not appreciate your, or anyone elses, insistence that he is.

My original comment was one of why I did not feel it was Russ' place to advise others on their political position, since a) he is biased, i.e. his past posts suggest his political affiliation advises his opinions on political matters, and b) he's is a self-confessed racist.

What we're coming down to here is the definitions of racism, hence Russ disagrees with my analysis, which is fair enough. I define it as a negative prejudice against all peoples of a specified race. I feel this is accurate and intuitive. Russ' comment fit this bill, but at the word 'racist' he recoils. Fair enough - who wouldn't?!? The hang up, though, is on the word, not the meaning. The meaning, quite clearly, is the content of Russ' post. Had I said I was anti-American, that I disliked the Americans, I very much doubt you would be standing up for me against accusations of racism.

I'm not here to call people names. My argument was actually against him advising others on a suitable political position.

You are also the first person I've seen define being adverse to ignorant generalisations of entire nations as 'closed-mindedness'. I'm guessing a coherent explanation of this is unlikely.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

My original comment was one of why I did not feel it was Russ' place to advise others on their political position, since a) he is biased, i.e. his past posts suggest his political affiliation advises his opinions on political matters, and b) he's is a self-confessed racist.

What we're coming down to here is the definitions of racism, hence Russ disagrees with my analysis, which is fair enough. I define it as a negative prejudice against all peoples of a specified race. I feel this is accurate and intuitive. Russ' comment fit this bill, but at the word 'racist' he recoils. Fair enough - who wouldn't?!? The hang up, though, is on the word, not the meaning. The meaning, quite clearly, is the content of Russ' post. Had I said I was anti-American, that I disliked the Americans, I very much doubt you would be standing up for me against accusations of racism.

I'm not here to call people names. My argument was actually against him advising others on a suitable political position.

You are also the first person I've seen define being adverse to ignorant generalisations of entire nations as 'closed-mindedness'. I'm guessing a coherent explanation of this is unlikely.

isn't this getting a little ridiculous? i mean, the guy has expressed an opinion and backed it up. he has made a summary judgement, in his own mind, so what?

these days, being called a 'racist' is probably the worst thing you could call someone. To do so simply because he holds a generalized opinion is simply ludicrous. Is he not free to express his views without being slandered?

It reminds me of how people in the USA, who criticize the USA's unwavering military support for Israel, are quickly decried as racist or anti-Semite. This is a load of crap, and is oppressive of the principles of self-expression that the USA was founded upon.

so let's drop this silliness, shall we?

 

[vanesch]

It reminds me of how people in the USA, who criticize the USA's unwavering military support for Israel, are quickly decried as racist or anti-Semite. This is a load of crap, and is oppressive of the principles of self-expression that the USA was founded upon.

But the difference is exactly there ! I think one should be free to criticize "the USA's unwavering military support for Israel" for instance. That doesn't make you a racist at all. However, if you say that you are anti-Jew because of their culture, well, eh, ... that's a different matter, isn't it.

But the point was exactly, in the beginning of the thread, that European intellectuals who dared to criticize US foreign politics were stamped as being anti-American (and hence, also anti-democratic, as if that were the logical consequence). Of course the example of the French government (and also people) - together with about three quarters of the rest of the world - opposing the US invasion in Iraq was pointed out. Up to here, I think we could all agree that this specific criticism of a US foreign policy should not be considered as anti-americanism in general, but in the article, it was.
Russ then sprung on the bandwagon and told us about his pride of being anti-french - one of the reasons being that the french government sometimes dares to criticize US policies ; the other one being that he met a few Parisians he didn't like, and pointing out is was a cultural thing.
Now, who are the ones criticising here individual aspects, and are being treated as anti-X of which they defend themselves, and who are the ones openly saying they are anti-Y and proud of it ?

That doesn't turn him directly in a cross-burning KKK member yet, true... I hope

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

isn't this getting a little ridiculous? i mean, the guy has expressed an opinion and backed it up. he has made a summary judgement, in his own mind, so what?

these days, being called a 'racist' is probably the worst thing you could call someone. To do so simply because he holds a generalized opinion is simply ludicrous. Is he not free to express his views without being slandered?

It reminds me of how people in the USA, who criticize the USA's unwavering military support for Israel, are quickly decried as racist or anti-Semite. This is a load of crap, and is oppressive of the principles of self-expression that the USA was founded upon.

so let's drop this silliness, shall we?

So [ahem] let me get this straight. Someone should not be described as a racist for expressing any generalised opinion. That would mean racism of any form could not be described as racism, since racism IS a generalised opinion. Weird logic.

In answer to your points in order:
1. He didn't make it in his own mind; he made it on a public forum.
2. The worst thing you can do to someone is a lot worse than calling them a racist. I just thought of eleven things that I cannot bring myself to type.
3. You cannot slander a slanderer? Russ called me an anti-American despite the fact I made no anti-American statements, and did not despite request back it up. That's slander. I called Russ a racist because he said he was 'anti-French' and 'disliked the French'. I did not realize I was slandering him at the time, since his racist comments led me to believe this was not going to be contentious, and I still don't see how it is, to be honest. Like I said, if I claimed to be anti-American or dislike the Americans, there is not a soul on this forum who would defend me against accusations of racism. And quite rightly too.

 

[Art]

isn't this getting a little ridiculous? i mean, the guy has expressed an opinion and backed it up. he has made a summary judgement, in his own mind, so what?

these days, being called a 'racist' is probably the worst thing you could call someone. To do so simply because he holds a generalized opinion is simply ludicrous. Is he not free to express his views without being slandered?

It reminds me of how people in the USA, who criticize the USA's unwavering military support for Israel, are quickly decried as racist or anti-Semite. This is a load of crap, and is oppressive of the principles of self-expression that the USA was founded upon.

so let's drop this silliness, shall we?

Let me try to understand what you are saying here; if I said for example, I am anti-black and I dislike all black people. you would not consider me a racist or a bigot but just somebody expressing a generalised opinion? And you would consider it slanderous if anybody else was to call me a racist?