Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing

[quetzalcoatl9]

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


We are not talking about superiority here, or discrimination. russ is not trying to prevent French people from getting jobs or something. He is merely expressing his opinion, and while you may fit this into "prejudice" it probably isn't because he has explained his views as having been based upon a judgement, not a pre-judgement.

For example: I am American. Someone here may say "I hate all Americans", they may hate the culture, language, etc. You know what? It wouldn't bother me, because they are entitled to both their opinion and the right to express it. I certainly would not call such a person a racist.

Is celebrating St. Patrick's day, a celebration of all things Irish (with a twinge of superiority for just one day) "racist"? According to webster above, it is. And yet, the complete converse of this, maybe someone who dislikes all things Irish, is "racist"? This, logically, makes no sense.

Maybe it's just that we Americans value freedom of expression over all else, but his own summary judgement, no matter how offensive it may seem to you, is perfectly valid. Claims of "racism" are a real cheap-shot here, and only serve to obfuscate any logic from these discussions.

 

[Art]

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


We are not talking about superiority here, or discrimination. russ is not trying to prevent French people from getting jobs or something. He is merely expressing his opinion, and while you may fit this into "prejudice" it probably isn't because he has explained his views as having been based upon a judgement, not a pre-judgement.

For example: I am American. Someone here may say "I hate all Americans", they may hate the culture, language, etc. You know what? It wouldn't bother me, because they are entitled to both their opinion and the right to express it. I certainly would not call such a person a racist.

Is celebrating St. Patrick's day, a celebration of all things Irish (with a twinge of superiority for just one day) "racist"? According to webster above, it is. And yet, the complete converse of this, maybe someone who dislikes all things Irish, is "racist"? This, logically, makes no sense.

Maybe it's just that we Americans value freedom of expression over all else, but his own summary judgement, no matter how offensive it may seem to you, is perfectly valid. Claims of "racism" are a real cheap-shot here, and only serve to obfuscate any logic from these discussions.

I note you have quietly dropped the word 'bigoted' from the discussion which was the word I used to describe Russ' quoted opinion. What happened did you also look up this word in your dictionary and not like what you saw?
Here, I'll help you. This is the def'n from the Oxford dictionary: Bigoted adj, unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant. Prejudice n, a preconceived opinion. Would you agree Russ' comments re the French were unreasonably predjudiced and intolerant?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

2 : racial prejudice

Thanks. So someone who practises racial prejudice is a racist. The question is then whether or not Russ has done so. First of all, has he prejudged? Well, his statements were: "I am anti-French" and "I dislike the French". This is a generalisation to all French people - no other criteria restrict the scope of his statements. As Russ has not, by his admission that the opinion is based on his experience in Paris, met every French person, and yet maintains dislike of them nonetheless, it is prejudice. What are the criteria which have to be met in order to be prejudged? You have to be French. Any others? No. So race is the only criterion to be met in order to be prejudged by Russ' statement. Therefore it is RACIAL PREJUDICE and, according to the definition you helpfully provided, this is termed 'racism'. The argument that it is merely his opinion is a no-brainer - it is a judgement, and by nature is subjective.

We are not talking about superiority here, or discrimination.

No. Nor are these the only criteria listed in the definition you gave. So?

He is merely expressing his opinion, and while you may fit this into "prejudice" it probably isn't because he has explained his views as having been based upon a judgement, not a pre-judgement.

Like I said, Russ has met few French people, unless they were all in Paris the same day he was, so it is, I'm afraid, a pre-judgement.

Is celebrating St. Patrick's day, a celebration of all things Irish (with a twinge of superiority for just one day) "racist"?

How is celebrating St. Patrick's Day a prejudgement? Is it usual to pass judgement on people you haven't met yet? Pride in your own nation is not a generalisation of others. Do you dislike another nation on St Patrick's Day? I would have thought the only people who did were people who disliked them on the other 364 days of the year.

Maybe it's just that we Americans value freedom of expression over all else, but his own summary judgement, no matter how offensive it may seem to you, is perfectly valid. Claims of "racism" are a real cheap-shot here, and only serve to obfuscate any logic from these discussions.

There's a contradiction here. You're defending one man's racial prejudice on grounds of freedom of expression, but attacking another man's disgust at it. Are my opinions not covered by the same freedoms? And if so, isn't your judgement of my opinions also invalid? Or is it one rule for you and another for us? I think I brought up dual standards earlier. Applies now. Furthermore, are you suggesting that being American is what is required to value freedom of expression? What about non-Americans? Are you suggesting they don't value freedom of expression? Or value it less? If not, why did you say it? What judgement are you making here on non-Americans?
Also, freedom of expression applies to censorship. No-one is censoring Russ. Look at the argument in context. The person most likely to be censored here is me, when admin take my comment as insult (though it was not intended that way - Russ claimed to be proud to be anti-French at first, so what his problem is I don't know) and ban me! Yes, you certainly hope so. No need to go there.
As for logic... I see no logic in statements like "I'm anti-French" or "I dislike the French", nor any in calling me anti-American, nor in your posting and then contradicting of a definition of racism, nor in using freedom of speech as a means to defend one man's views but not another, nor... well, I rest my case. I'm trying to be logical. I feel I have been. Others seem to agree, others disagree. What more do you want from logical debate?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Thanks. So someone who practises racial prejudice is a racist. The question is then whether or not Russ has done so. First of all, has he prejudged? Well, his statements were: "I am anti-French" and "I dislike the French". This is a generalisation to all French people - no other criteria restrict the scope of his statements. As Russ has not, by his admission that the opinion is based on his experience in Paris, met every French person, and yet maintains dislike of them nonetheless, it is prejudice. What are the criteria which have to be met in order to be prejudged? You have to be French. Any others? No. So race is the only criterion to be met in order to be prejudged by Russ' statement. Therefore it is RACIAL PREJUDICE and, according to the definition you helpfully provided, this is termed 'racism'. The argument that it is merely his opinion is a no-brainer - it is a judgement, and by nature is subjective.

Need this be ALL French people? What if he said that of the French that he has met, he disliked around 90% of them, therefore he generalizes (in this case, rightfully so) that he dislikes the French? The english language is not very precise sometimes, but I highly doubt that he means EVERY SINGLE FRENCH person.

Like I said, Russ has met few French people, unless they were all in Paris the same day he was, so it is, I'm afraid, a pre-judgement.

Again, this would not (in my opinion) be a pre-judgement. Let's say, of all the aligators that I have met in Florida, all of them were very mean. I will then generalize and conclude that alligators are mean, and I will stay away from them. I really do not care if there is a particularly domesticated and nice alligator.

Let's make some hypothetical generalizations:

1) Germans are great engineers
2) Italians make great artwork
3) The Portugese make great seafaring vessels
4) Mexicans make wonderful, spicy food

Is anyone offended yet? I guess I can't make any of these statements because they would presumably include ALL of these people in one group? So now you will claim that Italians can't make good engineers, or that Germans can't make good artwork? No, of course not!

Not only is generalization not necessarily bad, but most people of a unique racial background embrace it as a sense of pride!

Have you ever studied mathematical logic? If so, this is pertinent because a) the process of implication is often misunderstood b) the converse of statements in the english language are often times assumed to be the same as the original statement. I believe this to be the case here.

For example, try expressing the statement "Joe dislikes taxes" in mathematical logic. It's not really clear what this means - does the statement mean joe dislikes all taxes? or only some of them? does there exist a tax that joe does not dislike?

swimming pools have water, so does everything with water have to be a swimming pool? by the same reasoning can I say "russ dislikes the french" and yet there be a french person that russ does not dislike? YES.

How is celebrating St. Patrick's Day a prejudgement?

I was referring to superiority here, not prejudgement. And btw, I happen to love St. Paddy's day

There's a contradiction here. You're defending one man's racial prejudice on grounds of freedom of expression, but attacking another man's disgust at it. Are my opinions not covered by the same freedoms?

Indeed, your expression is protected by the same mechanism as Russ. I am not insinuating that you should be thrown in jail or silenced or something, merely that your accusations of racism, in my opinion, are unmerited in this case.

This business of "racism" has gotten silly - now even Bill Cosby is a racist! Am I the only one finding this funny?

 

[Joel]

I appologize in advance, I will get out order here:

Get your asses back on topic! NOW! If anyone bothered to read the OP, you'd notice it was about anti-americanism, not anti-semitism, anti-french, or anti-russ oppinions. ARRRR!

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

One final comment:

Having observed various racial integrations here in the USA, there are some racial and ethnic groups that "get it" and some that don't.

We can live in an imaginary, ideal world where racial judgement doesn't occur, but this simply is not a feasible reality.

For example, Cuban-Americans were very smart in handling this. Not wanting to be lumped into the generalization of Hispanics in the general public's eyes, they actively pushed for their own education and professionalism - despite facing great poverty and persecution. As a result, Cuban-Americans are very successful (whoah - a generalization, better throw me in jail), while some other racial groups go on crying about how unfairly they are treated.

In short, racial groups getting a "bad reputation" is not necessarily a bad thing since this can promote improvement. If you silence these criticisms it only makes things worse (by removing a natural source of pressure) and creates a victim-mentality among the races, and ultimately class warfare. It is unfair to expect people not to generalize and pretend that there are not certain patterns when it comes to racial problems in a society.

Bill Cosby has tried to bring criticisms of African-Americans to light again, in order that the standard of living for African-Americans can improve. And what does he get for his troubles? To be called a "racist".

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I appologize in advance, I will get out order here:

Get your asses back on topic! NOW! If anyone bothered to read the OP, you'd notice it was about anti-americanism, not anti-semitism, anti-french, or anti-russ oppinions. ARRRR!

Do you not find the change of topic interesting? This thread had pretty much died (while on-topic) already, anyway.

I, for one, have found it a very interesting and enjoyable dialogue. Hopefully no one has gotten offended in the process, although I guess it is inevitable in debate.

 

[vanesch]

Get your asses back on topic! NOW! If anyone bothered to read the OP, you'd notice it was about anti-americanism, not anti-semitism, anti-french, or anti-russ oppinions. ARRRR!

The points here are right on topic, I'd say. Even if you think that the original post was about anti-americanism, it was a finger-pointing exercise to European intellectuals (and of course french more in particular) who were *supposed to be* anti-american, and a lot of other bad properties. So this was actually an anti-european/french-intellectual article. So it goes to the heart of the question to consider what exactly it means, to be anti-X, and Russ very helpfully provided a personalized example General conclusion seems to be that a generalized anti-X sentiment is bigotry and racism, so finally it turns out that the original article treats European intellectuals as racist bigots without a clue.

We could now excell in some pot-kettle game, and turn things around. I have the impression that the dispute over the Iraq war created far more generalized anti-french and anti-european sentiment in the US than the other way around!

 

[Joel]

Vanesh, I still disagree with this being on topic simply because you can always turn the cettle around.

The article was indeed very provocative and the prejudice towards European intelectuals was rightfully cticised and hopefully shown as slander to everyone's satisfaction. This was in my oppinion very much on topic since to use anti-americanism in this manner would degenerate it to cheap political mud slinging. However, that would IMHO have been enough, no need to go into a deep analysis of all the prejudice america(ns) may hold in a thread about prejudice towards america(ns). That belongs in another thread.

All this simply because I think it is very important to explore what oppinions are actually based on myths without ending up in a 'oh but you also do it' discourse.

 

[vanesch]

no need to go into a deep analysis of all the prejudice america(ns) may hold in a thread about prejudice towards america(ns).

Again, I don't think that this was - despite its name - a thread on prejudice TOWARDS americans. It was a thread based on PERCEIVED prejudice towards americans, by americans. And now we're back into the analysis of the prejudices Americans (not all of them, but those that perceive this anti-american prejudice) hold.

My thesis was: this perceived anti-american feeling from the part of European intellectuals is in fact nothing else but specific criticisms formulated by them. However, there's a fraction of Americans who (I repeat myself) are so much convinced of their own infallible god status as a nation that they perceive any criticism of it as blasphemy (= anti-americanism).
Now, you can say that this is just my opinion, but I have been reading quite some material from the intellectual french left (probably the most targetted group), and they WARN all the time NOT to fall into the easy trap of anti-americanism.

I think that if you want to look for true anti-americanism, you'll have to look ELSEWHERE than with a majority of european intellectuals. I think you'll find it.

 

[Joel]

Do you not find the change of topic interesting? This thread had pretty much died (while on-topic) already, anyway.

As a warning example, yes. As constructive, no.

As I said in responce to Vanech, you can not combat real prejudice if you start comparing 'how does more bad things'. Maybe it would have been better not to post such a provocing article to beggin the discusion, but still... For example, Paul Johnson's second point about cultural prejudice may not be so far fetched, I can sertanly see the seeds for this myth. But based on the newspaper article's evidence I can not say if it actually holds any merit. This kinds of avenues would be worth to explore further.

 

[Joel]

Again, I don't think that this was - despite its name - a thread on prejudice TOWARDS americans. It was a thread based on PERCEIVED prejudice towards americans, by americans. And now we're back into the analysis of the prejudices Americans (not all of them, but those that perceive this anti-american prejudice) hold.

Ok, it is possible. But do we really know that? Wouldn't you say anti-americanism IS a worthy topic to explore further, whatever the actual intention of this thread was?

My thesis was: this perceived anti-american feeling from the part of European intellectuals is in fact nothing else but specific criticisms formulated by them.

I agree on the finger pointing towards European intellectuals, as you can see from my first post in this thread where I tried to separate the different uses of anti-americanism.

However, there's a fraction of Americans who (I repeat myself) are so much convinced of their own infallible god status as a nation that they perceive any criticism of it as blasphemy (= anti-americanism).

Again I agree, as you can see from the same erlier post about different meanings of anti-americanism.

Now, you can say that this is just my opinion, but I have been reading quite some material from the intellectual french left (probably the most targetted group), and they WARN all the time NOT to fall into the easy trap of anti-americanism.

Good, very good. And as said, this is very righfully and eloquantly pointed out by you and others.

I think that if you want to look for true anti-americanism, you'll have to look ELSEWHERE than with a majority of european intellectuals. I think you'll find it.

As a collective entity, sure. But if the french intellectuals warn about the dangers of anti-americanism, some have fallen to the dark side, no? Even if Europe isn't any nest of anti-americanism, I don't think it can be denied that it still exists here, even if it is to a lesser degree.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I appologize in advance, I will get out order here:

Get your asses back on topic! NOW! If anyone bothered to read the OP, you'd notice it was about anti-americanism, not anti-semitism, anti-french, or anti-russ oppinions. ARRRR!

No, Joel, the TITLE of the thread was anti-Americanism. The OP contained a link to an article that was anti-European from the get go. It particularly focused on the French. Furthermore we're discussing the meaning of racism in general and how it compares to being 'anti' a nation or disliking a nation, so has value when talking about both anti-Americanism and anti-Europeanism. This is essentially a debate on ethics and semantics. So in relation to the OP, we're not being as irrelevant as you think.

 

[vanesch]

But if the french intellectuals warn about the dangers of anti-americanism, some have fallen to the dark side, no? Even if Europe isn't any nest of anti-americanism, I don't think it can be denied that it still exists here, even if it is to a lesser degree.

Of course, but I think it is much more present in popular layers of the population than in the heads of intellectuals.

Here's an old article http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/042/article_22297.asp from 2003.

La cote américaine n’a pas fléchi dans les seuls pays musulmans. En Europe aussi, la perception de la politique internationale américaine n’a pas été du goût de tout le monde. Si c’est à George W. Bush qu’est attribuée au premier chef la responsabilité de cette situation, l’hostilité rejaillit aussi sur la population. Et les relations entre les Etats-Unis et certains de leurs alliés traditionnels ne sortent pas indemnes des événements des derniers mois. Les Français ne sont que 43 % à avoir une opinion favorable des Etats-Unis, les Allemands 45 %, les Espagnols, don't le gouvernement s’est pourtant engagé clairement aux côtés de la coalition américano-britannique, 38%. Réciproquement, les Américains n’ont pas apprécié l’absence de soutien de la France et de l’Allemagne qui ont pris la tête du clan des anti-guerre. Les personnes sondées aux Etats-Unis n’ont été que 28 % à déclarer avoir un sentiment favorable à la France (contre 79 % en février 2002) et 44 % à l’Allemagne (contre 83 %).

Essentially it says that although most people take Bush as principal responsible for the Iraqi situation, some negative feelings are projected towards the American population in general.
The question was: do you have a FAVORABLE opinion of the US, and, this gave, in France: 43% favorable ; in Germany: 45% favorable, in Spain 38% favorable.
However, in the US, a favorable opinion of France dropped from 79% to 28% before and after the Iraqi dispute, while a favorable opinion of Germany dropped from 83% to 44%.

That said, not having a favorable opinion does not necessary imply an anti-X feeling.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Need this be ALL French people?

Well, how many French people are covered by the collective 'the French'? Are there any that aren't? If not all French people were intended to be in the scope of Russ' statement, then the English way of saying this is 'some of the French'. This is not what he said and I very much doubt it is what he meant.

Again, this would not (in my opinion) be a pre-judgement.

Well, I really do not know what else you'd call an opinion about someone you have not met based on your appraisal of others of the same race that you have other than racial prejudice. But you're entitled to your opinion. ;o)

Let's say, of all the aligators that I have met in Florida, all of them were very mean. I will then generalize and conclude that alligators are mean, and I will stay away from them. I really do not care if there is a particularly domesticated and nice alligator.

Absolutely. If you see another alligator, regardless of how friendly it is, you have already decided he/she is mean based on your experience of others, NOT based on experience of that particular one. In other words, you have PRE-judged that alligator. And yet no-one has a problem with this. But then you're generalising about prejudice! Just because one form of prejudice is bad, does not mean another is. You cannot be totally unaware of the historical reasons why racial prejudice is frowned upon. As far as I am aware, no such reason for not prejudging alligators exists. I doubt the alligators care either. I'm not damning prejudice, or bias, in general - this is about racial prejudice, and negative prejudice in particular.

1) Germans are great engineers
2) Italians make great artwork
3) The Portugese make great seafaring vessels
4) Mexicans make wonderful, spicy food

Is anyone offended yet? I guess I can't make any of these statements because they would presumably include ALL of these people in one group?

What do you mean by "I can't make any of these statements"? Are you back on freedom of expression again? Must I remind you no-one here is being censored? Or are you asking about the validity of your statements? It would with great certainly be incorrect to claim Germans are great engineers, since there will undoubtably be many, most even, who are not. But I guess you're asking if it is morally wrong to say Germans are great engineers. See the above response to your alligator argument.

So now you will claim that Italians can't make good engineers, or that Germans can't make good artwork? No, of course not!

How does this follow? I don't get you. Are you saying that by stating that Germans are good engineers, this means that Italians can't also be good engineers? This is absurd.

For example, try expressing the statement "Joe dislikes taxes" in mathematical logic. It's not really clear what this means - does the statement mean joe dislikes all taxes? or only some of them? does there exist a tax that joe does not dislike?

If so, then the statement is incorrect. In English we would say "Joe dislikes some taxes".

swimming pools have water, so does everything with water have to be a swimming pool? by the same reasoning can I say "russ dislikes the french" and yet there be a french person that russ does not dislike? YES.

These are not remotely equivilent statements. The statement 'swimming pools have water' only tells you about swimming pools, not things in general that contain water. The only things covered by the term 'swimming pools' are swimming pools. There are no swimming pools not covered by this term. The statement "I dislike the French" refers to the French. Not some of the French, but everyone who would fall under the category the French. There are no French people not falling under this category. You have a logic problem.

I was referring to superiority here, not prejudgement. And btw, I happen to love St. Paddy's day

And I was talking about prejudgment, not superiority.

Indeed, your expression is protected by the same mechanism as Russ. I am not insinuating that you should be thrown in jail or silenced or something, merely that your accusations of racism, in my opinion, are unmerited in this case.

Not just that, but that you would have me stop expressing my opinion ("Let's drop this silliness, shall we?") ;o) That's not my point. My point is that you are defending Russ' opinion from my own with freedom of expression, and at the same arguing against mine in the same way I was arguing against Russ'. You are not applying the right equally.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

In short, racial groups getting a "bad reputation" is not necessarily a bad thing since this can promote improvement. If you silence these criticisms it only makes things worse (by removing a natural source of pressure) and creates a victim-mentality among the races, and ultimately class warfare. It is unfair to expect people not to generalize and pretend that there are not certain patterns when it comes to racial problems in a society.

So... what you're saying is that it is a good thing that Hispanics have a bad reputation because it improves the lot of the Cubans? Or, more generally, racism is a good thing because it inclines its targets to form a new race that will not be covered by the racist behaviour and in the process improve themselves. I guess, then, the English view of native Americans as sub-human scum with no culture worth preseving was a good thing because it improved the lot of the English and then, later, the Americans. Okay... good to know where you're coming from.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I have the impression that the dispute over the Iraq war created far more generalized anti-french and anti-european sentiment in the US than the other way around!

Excellent point. I don't really see how any American can complain about anti-Americanism after the knee-jerk anti-French and anti-German response to their governments refusal to aid America in starting a war with a country for arguable reasons. Like I said, dual-standards.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Ok, it is possible. But do we really know that? Wouldn't you say anti-americanism IS a worthy topic to explore further, whatever the actual intention of this thread was?

HANG ON! You were the one complaining about people exploring things you considered to be off-topic, even though they weren't. Now you're saying we should explore anti-Americanism, despite the fact the OP is really about anti-Europeanism and anti-intellectualism? Sheesh!

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

So... what you're saying is that it is a good thing that Hispanics have a bad reputation because it improves the lot of the Cubans? Or, more generally, racism is a good thing because it inclines its targets to form a new race that will not be covered by the racist behaviour and in the process improve themselves. I guess, then, the English view of native Americans as sub-human scum with no culture worth preseving was a good thing because it improved the lot of the English and then, later, the Americans. Okay... good to know where you're coming from.

That is NOT what I said, and you are twisting my words. Go back and read what I actually said.

I said that Cubans, wanting to counter social criticisms of being uneducated, pushed especially hard for their own education and therefore improved their own standard of living, much to their credit.

I am going to withdraw from this conversation now, since we are no longer communicating.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

"We can live in an imaginary, ideal world where racial judgement doesn't occur, but this simply is not a feasible reality.

For example, Cuban-Americans were very smart in handling this. Not wanting to be lumped into the generalization of Hispanics in the general public's eyes, they actively pushed for their own education and professionalism - despite facing great poverty and persecution. As a result, Cuban-Americans are very successful (whoah - a generalization, better throw me in jail), while some other racial groups go on crying about how unfairly they are treated.

In short, racial groups getting a "bad reputation" is not necessarily a bad thing since this can promote improvement."

Excuse me if I misunderstood you, but I don't know how else to interpret this other than 'racial prejudice is good if it promotes improvement for one lot of people'. Maybe I'm being slow. Maybe you're not explaining right. Maybe we'll never know now you're in a huff. Poke it.

 

[Smurf]

Excuse me if I misunderstood you, but I don't know how else to interpret this other than 'racial prejudice is good if it promotes improvement for one lot of people'. Maybe I'm being slow. Maybe you're not explaining right. Maybe we'll never know now you're in a huff. Poke it.

I think his point is a theoretical "Survival of the fittest" and "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" sort of thing. Unfortunatly I don't think he understands just how bad racism can be and that, even in the case of hispanics, it does kill, and they don't have the opportunity to become stronger.

 

[Andy]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing. tsk tsk tsk.

Am i racist if i don't like the french nation but i like french people? I have only been to france once but for some reason i don't like france, what's that all about? Could it be that the media's representation of france has clouded my vision somewhat? Do you suppose that other people that watch television, read newspapers etc, aren't somehow biased by the media towards not liking a nation? I reckon it must be the media's fault, because i have never met a french person that i don't like. So i propose that we ban all sources of media so that we can all get along nicely without these petty arguements.

 

[PerennialII]

Au contraire, think this has been a good thread ... stuff like this pulled out in the open can perhaps eliminate some of the general deterioration of threads under 'politics & world affairs'.

 

[Art]

Au contraire, think this has been a good thread ... stuff like this pulled out in the open can perhaps eliminate some of the general deterioration of threads under 'politics & world affairs'.

I wholeheartedly agree. By virtue of this discussion of what constitutes racism and bigotry we should in the future be able to have discussions which don't immediately degenerate into accusations of anti-Americanism. So I see this as time well spent.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Am i racist if i don't like the french nation but i like french people? I have only been to france once but for some reason i don't like france, what's that all about?

It isn't the physical country that makes a nation - it is its people.

I think the debate (as opposed to argument) has been interesting. If you disagree, fine.

 

[Andy]

From what i have read it just appears to be people trying to justify slagging off america and its people.

 

[vanesch]

Am i racist if i don't like the french nation but i like french people?

That's a very strange statement I have difficulties finding out what it could mean: I don't like nation X, but I like X nationals ?

 

[Andy]

Yea i know, tis strange isn't it.

But the french people i have met through foreign exchange have all been very pleasant. But for some reason i don't like france. I don't understand it myself but i can only assume its down to the endless barrage of assault france gets in the UK tabloid media. Should stop reading it really.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I wholeheartedly agree. By virtue of this discussion of what constitutes racism and bigotry we should in the future be able to have discussions which don't immediately degenerate into accusations of anti-Americanism. So I see this as time well spent.

Anti-anything, I'd hope.

 

[vanesch]

I don't understand it myself but i can only assume its down to the endless barrage of assault france gets in the UK tabloid media. Should stop reading it really.

Or maybe it is genetic ? Maybe you've been naturally selected to dislike France ? Does disliking France give you higher survival and procreation chances over the pond ?

 

[Art]

Anti-anything, I'd hope.

Yes of course but until this thread I don't think there were accusations of people being anti-european or anti-anything else other than anti-American.
.

 

[Art]

Yea i know, tis strange isn't it.

But the french people i have met through foreign exchange have all been very pleasant. But for some reason i don't like france. I don't understand it myself but i can only assume its down to the endless barrage of assault france gets in the UK tabloid media. Should stop reading it really.

I wouldn't beat yourself up over it. From my experience the feeling is fully reciprocated When I was in Paris the folk I met practically snarled at me when they first heard me speak until I informed them I wasn't English afterwhich they couldn't have been more charming.

 

[Andy]

Sounds about right, you americans think you have it bad just try living as close to them as we do!

Hopefully it's genetic, that way i would be able to carrying reading the smut in the tabloids without thought of being brainwashed.

 

[Art]

Sounds about right, you americans think you have it bad just try living as close to them as we do!

Hopefully it's genetic, that way i would be able to carrying reading the smut in the tabloids without thought of being brainwashed.

? Vanesch and me American? Have u read any of our posts?

 

[Smurf]

Yes of course but until this thread I don't think there were accusations of people being anti-european or anti-anything else other than anti-American.
.

yeah you MUST be new