Anti-Americanism is not directed at the American people but at the intrusive and self-interested policies of the various US Government as you describe earlier in the article.

It is a bit too much of a knee-jerk response to claim anti-Americanism to avoid facing some home truths or avoid indulging in some reflection. It is the same rhetoric used by some to diminish the rights of Palestinians by claiming anti-Jewish when criticising Israel. Clearly not 'all' the Israelis agree with government policy in the same way Americans may not condone all presidential decisions.

Americans have been vocal too in their opposition to the invasion of Iraq - we just don't hear about it as much.

It is not right to label a people for the acts of their government but I don't think any rational people engage in blanket generalisations. The Right Wing Conservatives are the loudest in the US (eg. The Tea Party) but there are also growing vocal calls for health care reform and the like. The media tends to like a colourful story and the Right are fodder for that in the US. However, Americans are like any other nation of people with a variety of views and beliefs.

Wilsonian idealism? Much of the motivation for Woodrow Wilson's actions was his racism. Wilson was born in the antebellum south and reflected their racist attitudes.

Black people in Wilson's time were generally not well educated. However, there were no formal barriers against their promotion in the US Civil Service. When Wilson was elected president he decreed that black people in the Civil Service could rise no higher than clerks.

Wilson introduced the term self-determination to diplomatic parlance. He advocated that the components of the Austro-Hungarian Empire form separate national entities on the basis of their ethnicity. One result would be that Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians and other 'inferior peoples' would be less likely to want to come to the US.

Wilson was a highly educated man who was president of Princeton University, and Jackson was a self-educated frontiersman. Wilson was a cultured bigot, and Jackson was an uncultured bigot.

"However, the global enthusiasm generated by the election of Barack Obama shows that, despite America's many failings, the world holds a great reservoir of hope for the US to be true to its much pronounced ideals."

How long ago was this article written? Is he a Lowy Institute stooge?

The 'hope for the US' based on the election of Obama died nine months after he was elected when people realised and still do that he was then and still is captive to the forces that have run the US government for the past 8 years, the infamous Bush cabal of liars, mass-murderers and terrorists who the US people accept as the new American paradigm in 2011. The writer appears to admire such people while still expecting the world, in the waning decades of US empire, to garner some respect for a country that through its actions, almost 200 wars it has started since it moved the British off the top rung of the ladder, deserving nothing but condemnation.

Imagine what they could have done in that time.

Such condemnation in a real sense is now its legacy as we have seen in the continual acts of aggression towards the US in and around the 780 bases it owns around the world. What a hate target they represent along with the countries that have thrown in their lot with the US, Australia being a prime example. Eleven years of contributing nothing to the development of Afghanistan which, given three more years of the US and it will all be back to where it was before the British, before the Russians and before the US Coalition of the Willing (Subservient), where it has been happily surviving since time began, living a life of the people’s choosing, with their own values and laws.

Trying to make Afghanistan conform to the distorted image of the Zionist-controlled US media, right-wing Christian zealots on every corner, morally and financially bankrupt, is a patently forlorn hope even for those in the current US administration with their fingers stuck in the honey pot.
The militarists.

Good points, David f.

In the early twentieth century, in some western US mining towns, there are reputed to have been signs saying "No Bohunks Allowed": 'debate' centred on whether or not eastern Europeans were non-white and therefore to be barred from employment in favour of whites, i.e. Anglo-Celts.

The pro-American vs. anti-American dynamic is a very powerful one, but it's by no means the only political dynamic in the world today, and never has been. There is a multitude of dynamics, Palestinians vs. Israel, Sunni vs. Shia, Muslims vs. unbelievers, Turks vs. Kurds, Turks vs. Greeks, Greeks vs. Macedonians, Kosovars vs. Serbs, Russia vs. Georgia, Sydney vs. Melbourne, Gulgong vs. Mudgee, Darwin vs. Alice Springs, Berri vs. Barmera, etc. etc. Freud's description of the narcissism of small differences springs to mind.

Some of these dynamics are partly consonant with others, or 'overlap', but each have their own driving factors.

Once we realise this, we have to face the possibility that, not only may some parties be 'better' than the Americans, that some degree of anti-Americanism may be justified, but that some parties may be a lot worse, and that it may not be justified. It's a complex world, we have to make informed judgments on major issues rather than be content with a stock knee-jerk reaction, which takes on a sort of religious, them-us/100% evil-100% good, aspect, a lazy way to do politics.

Understanding the world is hard work. The either-or, Manichaean approach, and conspiracy theories, are much easier, they provide a spurious closure on debate, but get us nowhere. Sorry, Arjay, no offence :)

Joe

The only oxymoron on display here is unbiased leftie discussion.

America bad ... it's enemies good ...huh?

Really when will these people show some balance.

The US is the logical result of the philosophies of democracy developed over a few thousand years. But because America doesn't toady to the latest leftie bunchs ideas and the proven failure of the accompaning socializst philosophy America's leaders sins are paraded as a failure of the democratic system and lauded as the end of the world's attempt at democracy.

How shallow, short-sighted and a thoroughly ignorant assumption.

The few thousand years of democracy's development and it's ability to withstand deviations and it's temporary appropriation by many ill-informed or deceiptful individuals is testament enough to that.

America and it's version of democracy will outlive the socialists mantras.

As opposed to the oxymoron of unbiased Righty discussions.

Everyone has a bias, it is about discussing the reasons behind them. No goal I'm afraid.

Would Australians like to be characterised by everything Julia Gillard, Bob Menzies, John Gorton or John Howard did while in office? Made feel accountable for every movie made in Australia? For every Right or Left wing nut in the country? Blamed for everything our companies did overseas? Would you like to be characterised overseas by the views of Paulin Hanson, Bob Katter or Paul Howes? What do you think about Australia being known as the place where the Hoddle street or Port Arthur massacre happened or where 4 yr olds get killed by vicious dogs? Or that we are warmongers who send their troops to many countries overseas we know little about?

No? Well, that is exactly what we do to Americans. By disliking 'Americans' we hold their citizens personally repsonsible for the deeds of people they know nothing about and probaly never voted for.

Its just plain stupid, really.

Atman
Who is holding the American citizens responsible. Most rational people agree with you. The anti-American sentiment is not about Americans it is about disagreement with US policy. Blind Freddy can see that. It is too easy to charge people with being anti-whatever just for disagreeing. Examples are the well trotted out accusations about anti-Catholicism for seeking to address problems around pedophilia or anti-Christian for suggesting secularism is fair to all beliefs etc. It is a non-argument.

Does an accusation of being anti-American mean there is no room for debate about US Policy? I hope not all we would all be hamstrung by the martyr complex.

Anti-Americanism us easy, if you just count up all the wars they’ve been in. The Yanks always join the interesting ones, usually on the wrong side. If Americans aren’t involved, its probably not worth following. Take the utterly pointless Iran-Iraq War, for instance. It lasted eight years and cost half a million lives, but I reckon not one in twenty remembers the first thing about it. The Soviets had a go in Afghanistan between ’79 and ’89, but even after killing 1-2 million nobody noticed; the Americans didn’t get there until 2001, and STILL haven’t broken six figures with their body count, but they’re all over the Ruskies for generating outrage. Everybody remembers Vietnam ... something like two millions dead, and of course the Americans killed every one of ‘em. Well, almost. There’s the small matter 1.8 million Cambodians done by Pol Pot from ’75 to ’79 ... and of 2.5 millions killed by the North Vietnamese between ’75 and ’87. They don’t count, though, because it wasn’t a war involving Americans; the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists just did it to find out if the Americans would intervene to stop it and, surprise, surprise, they didn’t. Americans didn’t actually FIGHT in the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars, but everyone knows Israel couldn’t have withstood the combined might of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia without help from the Yanks. Just think how much simpler life would be today if the Americans had let the Arab States win! Stalin killed 18 millions in his labour camps, but since it was only a COLD War with the Americans, they don’t get all the blame, even if everyone knows it wouldn’t have happened if the Americans had been nicer to Stalin. The Americans weren’t very nice to Mao Zedong either, but since that wasn’t a war, nobody counted how many died during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Some people have suggested 70-100 millions might have died, but they’re probably Americans. Yep, anti-Americanism is easy. Only history is hard.

Well said Donkey.

Dear Donkey,

THanks for that. I am a dual citizen of the US and Australia who is often critical of the policies of both countries. However, it rarely is a choice between good and bad, it is often a choice between bad and horrible. When the world is dominated by one country that country is going to use its power in oppressive ways whatever country happens to hold the power. Contemplate a world dominated by Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

I never been to the US but from what I see & hear in the media & people I meet the Americans far outstrip Australians so far as patriotism is concerned.
I simply couldn't imagine an american council not flying the national flag for fear it might upset some cranks.

Gawd, the fact that the US has made some poor decisions does not mean other nations and leaders (eg. Stalin) have not also made poor decisions. Other horrors have also been well recorded. The US gains a lot by it's high profile. A high profile comes with greater scrutiny - one generally cannot exist without the other -that is real life.

Patriotism is a double egded sword. Terrorists use patriotism to excuse all manner of evil acts. Patriotism is all but useless unless equal respect is given to the rights of peoples from other cultures to live without fear of invasion or economic disadvantage via self-motivated foreign policies.

It would be much better to display patriotism to the human condition.

Americans are generally the most generous and helpful of people I have met. As the author writes American citizens have made great strides in the sustainable food movements among other things. Criticising Americans is not the same as criticising it's foreign policies.

Pelican

The point of the article is that some people blame an entire nation for the behaviour of their Govt, companies or individuals. I'm saying that many of these irrationally Anti-american people in Australia would feel we unfairly treated if the world blamed 'Australians' in the same way.

Yes, people can debate US policy but why not debate Chinese, Iranian or Soviet policy too? Why not debate why the UN fails horribly to prevent a predictable famine in Africa and stands idly by while African countries kill millions in civil wars?

We spent far too much time whining about America when we all know that without the US the world would have imploded long ago.

the world would have imploded long ago.
Atman,
I'm sure that's what Pelican & Co are hellbent on wanting to happen.

Atman
I disagree with the assertion that people are doing as you claim. Who is blaming Americans? I am sure there are a minority of people who will use generalisations such as the Chinese when really speaking about the Chinese Government. Canberrans live with it all the time with 'Canberra' being used to mean government or the seat of power, as though somehow Canberra is responsible. Canberrans are just people too. But logic dictates that the majority of people do not interpret this literally.

And there are many discussions and debate around the actions of other countries.

Mind you there are a few tossers about given the following comment by another poster.

"I'm sure that's what Pelican & Co are hellbent on wanting to happen."

It is all about interpretation. Clearly my argument was completely misinterpreted by this individual to avoid any rationality on their part, but just highlights the way people will interpret events to suit their own prejudices. My core point was to dispute that 'people' whoever they are blame the American 'people' as opposed to some of the poorer choices of the US Govt. Probability is that someone somewhere will interpret that to mean I want the world to implode. Strange but true.

"I'm sure that's what Pelican & Co are hellbent on wanting to happen."
Pelican,
if that's no the case then why defend Labor to the hilt at every turn ? Why object to trying to stop the mad ones from taking over ? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc. you're always objecting to the invasions. If you're not in favour of stopping them then the only other conclusion is that you're not abject to the world imploding. No toss about that.

individual
Do you actually read my posts at all. I have been very critical of Labor. The only difference between myself and you is you think the Liberal party is akin to the Holy Grail. Just because a government is doing a bad job does not necessarily mean the alternative is better.

This has nothing to do with the article.

Voting citizens of the US of A have no responsibility or liability for the behaviour of its government ?
Where do you people get your ideas from ?
That seems like Yanky Wanky non-think to me .

I am a voting citizen of the US. We can only vote for the candidates that are put up by the parties. To be realistic the only meaningful candidates are those put up by the major parties since most ballots in the US are based on first past the post. I was appalled by many of the policies of Bush 2 so I voted for Obama who put himself forth as a candidate of change. In some cases he has carried on the Bush policies.

Actually I would have preferred Kucinich, but I could only vote for the person who got the nomination. Obama was most successful in raising money to support his candidacy. That was a great factor in his nomination.

I am a dual citizen of Australia and the US so I can legally vote in both elections. In Australia I can't even vote for the prime minister. I must vote for my local member of parliament neither of whom seemed any grat shakes. I regard both Abbott and Gillard as worse than the average Australian.

I don't feel I can be blamed for either Obama or Gillard although I voted for the parties of both.

DAVID :
You are probably a top person ,like my own valued US friends & relatives & , for that matter , I am a top type of individual myself.
You can therefore safely make concessions with the parts of my views that you don't like .

The US , in 2011 , has reintroduced torture (among other things) into its culture , & I think that that gives human beings a bad name - so freeking unimaginative - so freeking Un-Australian - so unnecessary , so Neanderthal .
It had to be the Yanks who so unashamedly gave birth to that gem , did'nt it ?

My own view is that , if you lie down with dogs , you get up with flees . I wonder when we are going to be told that slavery & cannibalism is ok & necessary .

David , you dont feel that you should be blamed for Obama , Gillard (who appeases) , Abbott , Rudd (ditto) .

I dont blame anyone David ,but where were we all when the torturing was going on , daddy ? What did you do to oppose it ? What else did you do beside "VOTING" ?

Dear Oz,

You asked what I have done.

I have demonstrated against the Vietnamese War and have committed acts of civil disobience by refusing to obey police orders to disperse during protests. I have visited draft resisters in Allenwood prison who were imprisoned for burning their draft cards and other actions in their opposition. I have supported financially groups such as the Quakers, the Jewish Peace Fellowship, the Catholic Worker that have opposed wars and violence in the US.

I participated in the big protests when the US and Australia were revving up for Gulf War 2.

Some people like the Berrigan brothers, Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr., Henry Thoreau and others have done much more than I have. Others like Hans Jaegerstatter have given their lives, but I have done a little besides merely expressing disapproval.

Dear Oz,

I also have consulted to Senator John Woodley in writing legislation that would require an impact statement before the Australia government approves the export of weaponry. The impact statement should require evaluation of social, economic, environmental, human rights and military consequences of such exports. Since Woodley did not represent any major party his bill was not passed, but the bill has had a second reading.

I have also as an editor of 'Social Alternatives' put out an issue devoted to the arms trade.

I am a tchnical person and have been offered a job which paid considerably more than my salary at that time to work on the Polaris missile. I refuse to work on such things. Other people have done more. They have refused to pay taxes that would go for war and have gone to prison for that. If one goes that far one should not have a family and children.

David :
I haven't done any more than you .

I think we’re kinda missing the point here. It’s all well and good to complain about American influence on the world ... but where do we find a BETTER influence?

It’s been 236 years since the USA established the first modern democracy, and they’ve been pretty active in spreading that system. In the process, they’ve made things fairly hard for countries with other ideas: Germany in WWI & WWII; Cuba, Vietnam and Chile in the Cold War; Libya and North Korea since. One could argue that the USA should’ve be more respectful of other choices.

That assumes, though, that US restraint would’ve been reflected in the behaviour of countries preferring other systems. Is that realistic? What SHOULD they have done?

Yes, the USA built the first atom bomb. The Manhattan Project was the result of a letter Einstein wrote to Roosevelt, assuring him that such a thing was theoretically possible. Einstein didn’t reach that conclusion alone, though -- he bounced the idea off his German colleagues, whose research confirmed the concept was feasible. You can blame the Yanks for that, but the point is, if they’d held back, Hitler wouldn’t have. Or Stalin, Mao, Kim il-sung. SOMEONE would’ve followed through. What prevention? Burning heretics at the stake? Establishing a new Index Librorum Prohibitorum? We’re lucky that really bad actors didn’t do it first.

Yes, I demonstrated against the Vietnam War. I didn’t demonstrate against Pol Pot’s slaughter afterwards, though, and that’s something I very much regret. I read Marx and bought his arguments for a bit ... until I saw of people shot in the back trying to climb over the Berlin Wall. My doubts about the capacity of the UN to improve things are confirmed at least monthly.

I’ve lost patience with criticisms that don’t offer positive alternatives. Capitalism is a flawed way to run the world; it succeeds because all known alternatives are much, much worse. The US isn’t an ideal world leader, but we aren’t blessed with many choices. What’s so wrong with making a good fist of the hand we’ve been dealt?

Donkey god :
Good clear comment . But your preference to just accept what is happening will please & encourage the US & backers but not me , as I don't think that US behavior is sustainable .
Appease the US in whatever it wants to do ? What if they decide that they want to start eating out pets ? Don't laugh .

sorry . That should be - eating OUR pets

I see your point, Oz, but you’re not alone in getting sucked into what I perceive as a false dichotomy. The choice isn’t to a) denounce the US, or b) ‘just accept what is happening’. We don’t have to choose between a) capitalism, b ) communism, or c) socialism. When searching for values, maybe it’s unwise to begin with broad abstractions like ‘America’ and ‘capitalism’. Generalisation is a fraught exercise; assertions obtained by inference from specific cases depend on one’s choice of specific cases. I assert that those choices are often grossly biased.

What I’m fumbling around for is a way to argue outside an either/or square. It’s easy and common to denounce the British Empire; how many died in its innumerable wars? Lots, but still no more than the tiniest fraction of 1% of the numbers felled by smallpox, which Edward Jenner’s vaccine finally ended. Jenner, the Royal Society, and Britain saved more lives than all the wars in history have managed to kill, but who remembers that?

In the 1960s, famine loomed in Asia. Tens of millions were certain to starve in a Malthusian catastrophe encompassing Pakistan and India. Meanwhile, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, a fellow by the name of Norman Borlaug was busy developing new short-straw wheat varieties which increased yield. The US government donated seed to the region, and by 1968 the threat of famine was eliminated; six years later, India was a net exporter of wheat. Borlaug and the institutions which supported him saved more lives than were lost in the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars combined, many times over. We’re still denouncing the wars, but not a soul remembers Borlaug. I could list 100 more examples ...

There’s something positively menacing in the enthusiasm with which we search for atrocities to denounce, especially when juxtaposed against the wholesale lack of enthusiasm for celebrating genuine triumphs. It’s as if highlighting good examples were bad form, and only intemperate accusations were virtuous. Like old-time preachers, we’re always on about sin, but almost ashamed to advertise virtue. That, I think, can’t be good.

Thank you, Donkey God. It's an imperfect, multi-dynamic, world, isn't it ?

Joe

Donkygod :
It is good of you to elaborate your point with all those facts . But I feel that you have misunderstood my point .

you're getting sucked into ...a false dicotomy . The choice is'nt to (a) denounce the US or (b) 'just accept what is happening'

I agree with with you there & have not said otherwise . In fact (a) covers the vocal position I have chosen , (b) covers your vocal position , but most other people (whether for or against the US) choose to keep quiet, & not vocalize their position (whether for or against the US) - that makes it a trilogy of choices , does'nt it ?

We dont have to choose between (a)Capitalism (b)Communism or (c)Socialism .

My posts said nothing about any Economic or Political Systems .

It's as if highlighting good examples (ie.of US behaviour) is bad form & only accusations are virtuous .

I acknowledge the US capacity for good - much much more than most countries . But how can that give rise to a license for them to commit whatever physical & other atrocities they choose to perpetrate ? Let alone making it taboo for even their friends to suggest that there is room for improvement ?

In your first post yesterday , you ask -
Where do we find a better influence (ie. than the US) ?

One answer to that is - a US with a higher Decency Quotient , thus , with better behaviour .

One reason for free speech is to point out wrongs. I agree with OZ.

The US or any other society can be improved. We can insist on accountability. The US Constitution forbids 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The act of torture whether the US does it or sources it out is illegal under the constitution as are undeclared wars. A larger proportion of the US population is in prison than in any other developed country. A higher proportion of the prisoners are non-white than in the general population. There is a very uneven distribution of wealth. The millitary-industrial complex needs to be reined in. Under Bush the US opted out of such international bodies such as the International Criminal Court. Obama has not reversed the policy.

Pointing out the atrocities of Nazi Germany and the Marxist tyrannies makes the US look good by comparison. Pointing out the wrongs in the US helps make the US better than it is, and it can be better than it is.