Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 18

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 are...like 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)
replies: text: Rama is perhaps unwittingly revealing a major root of anti-American sentiment abroad. Ignorance. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great Quote 

message: "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)
thread_title:  This page is blatantly biased..