Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 21

message: This article is completely biased!
Why is it that under the 'critisisms' section, all the points start off with "some people" while, the first, most promisnatn point starts with...
"Many charge that anti-Americanism stems largely from jealousy"
Why the many? Why is this particular 'charge' many while the other are only some? And their is know sourse backing up the 'many'people who make this charge. 
How can anybody claim that anti-americanism is like waht the Jews suffered during the 1930's and 40s? Currently, americans are not being round up on every corner and thrown into gas chambers.
And lets review the last point of the crisisms secion as well:
"Overall, the most common theme of many critics is that anti-Americanism is usually irrational in tone, and they thus distinguish it from simple criticism over policy. They argue that many manfestations of anti-American protest are thus based on sheer anger, jealously, bitterness, spite, or cruelty. Gestures such as flag burning, for example, might be disregarded as hysterical or "crazed"."
This catch-all point completley dismissed any form of legitimage anti-americanism, and should be placed in an anti-anti-americanism page all on its own.  And the world cruelty makes no sense at all? "They argue that many manfestations of anti-American protest are thus based on ... cruelty. " ??? 
This article is really below standards, and needs to be balanced out. Right now its just brushing away such a perseptive as being "crazed". To be Anti-american, is to be "crazed", "cruel", "jealous" and the like.
I removed the POV claim that France, above all other countries, is 'jealous' of America. If we're going to have that claim, then include all the other 'former empires'. That line was blatantly anti-French and silly. [I'm British, by the way.]
:Hello. The claim in the article is that the argument is made, not that it's true. The opinion page is the appropriate place for it--you (hopefully) aren't going to find speculation about the ideological motivations of the French elite in the news section. I provided a link to an article in The Economist, which is one of the many prominent places this has been argued. If you want, I can provide several others, such as Jean-François Revel's book pictured on the article. But IMHO the Economist piece sums it up nicely and is of an appropriate prominence to be sufficient as the only reference. --rehpotsirhc  22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased?

message: "Anti-Americanism is a term used by some people to label opinions with connection to the United States that the speaker disagrees." This is utterly POV. A common POV, yes, which the intro and "use of the term" address. This has been beat to death in the archives. While it does get changed occasionally, the intro as it stands has been the most stable this page has seen in a year. Also, the Vietnam pic better suits supposed "un-Americanism" rather than "anti-Americanism." See the very last archive post. Marskell 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now it's propaganda again... 

message: Hello. The first sentence of this article leaves out what around the world is known as the biggest generator of anti-Americanism, and that is the economic policies of the USA. This is verified in great detail in these academic books: 
When Corporations Rule the World, Daniel Kortens (former Harvard business professor), Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2nd edition, 2001.
The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex, Revised and Updated Edition, Helen Caldicott, New Press, 2002 and 2004.
I can give plently of other books to be cited also, if anybody wants them. 
Given the information in these books (and I can give citations is anybody wants them), it seems that the article is incomplete without mention in the first sentence that in addition to culture, etc., economic policies are to blame. Americans often know this to be true anyway (ever heard Osama Bin Laden talk about his wrath that oil comes out of his country and into the USA? One of countless examples). So, given this information, I am wondering why this is not included in the first sentence. It was added the other day by another user but omitted and the only reason given was: 'unverified information.' But what I have just written verifies it, so it should go back on. If anybody wants, I would be happy to add into the article a well researched small paragraph that explains this issue.
:The long-standing idea here was dislike of America/Americans regardless of policy. Note, for instance, the last sentence of use of term: "Finally, it is argued that a consistent anti-American ideology is defensible if based on an economic or political foundation rather than on hatred of American culture or American ethnic or racial composition." That is to be against some economic or political stance, is not necessarily to be Anti-American. I don't mind policy being mentioned in the first paragraph but this nuance needs to be kept in mind. Marskell 14:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WADR, I think you missed the point of the article. Simply opposing Bush or his policies is not Anti-Americanism. --rehpotsirhc  13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, criticisms of Bush administration policies are often enough labelled anti-Americanism. Since the article cannot possibly establish what AA is - this would require original research - we have to rely on where and how the term is applied. Rkrichbaum 01:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence should include 'economic policies'

message: 1. ... poll of 17 countries performed in 2005 finds a "sharp drop" from 2004 and even from 2002 levels of support for terrorism and Bin Laden in most countries surveyed ... 
Interesting data, yet irrelevant in this article: "support for terrorism" or an alleged terrorist mastermind does not translate into "anti-Americanism" and vice versa. 
2. ... BBC report in January 2002 about certain urban legends in Kano, Nigeria, in relation to the alleged support and admiration of terrorist activities etc.
see above
3. ... New York Times article in early 2002 ... revealed that 95 percent of educated Saudis between the ages of 25 and 41 support Osama bin Laden ...
no link to NYT, instead to Harper's - as a regular reader I personally trust that Harper's quotes are correct, but in this case one would like to know a little more about the circumstances than is cited in this little entry. As it is, there is no apparent relation of this entry to "anti-Americanism".
4. The September 11 attacks and the subsequent celebrations ... earlier terrorist strikes against U.S. interests, provide extreme examples of Anti-American sentiment. 
That is a conclusion, not a statement of proven fact. We do not even have valid convictions against perpetrators or supporters of the attacks, nor do we have confessions which would suggest the "anti-American" motivation.
Rkrichbaum 19:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.2.1 Islam