h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is the US defunct? Is it controlled by a bunch of self-serving warmongers? Has its much vaunted constitution been so undermined and dismantled that it really serves no purpose at all? Should the rest of us finally just bite the bullet and ignore them like deep down we know we want to?

>>Should the rest of us finally just bite the bullet and ignore them like deep down we know we want to

Yes.

Was there one particular question you wanted to ask? We've already got a complaints in general about the US debate thread. I don't have any idea where to start with this one.

"Should the rest of us finally just bite the bullet and ignore them like deep down we know we want to" don't we mostly do that already?

Pretty much the same questions were asked about the UN on the "The UN" thread a while ago. It seemed that the questions I asked in post number one are pretty legitimate. And the questions really are directed more to researchers living outside the US.

This is anti-Americanism. This doesn't belong here. What can be said on this subject has been exhaustively covered in Ask h2g2 and elsewhere. It ends (and often begins) with unpleasantries.

Can you at least alter the question so we can debate something?


How's about this for a suggestion:

Is anti-Americanism racism? If not, what is it?


Ste

"Is anti-Americanism racism? If not, what is it?"

it's a labell like "yank bashing"

often used by people who want to avoid discussion and who don't others in said discussion.

Could you redo that last sentence please

okay, assume the word "want" after the word "don't"

I'm tired

Which questions in post number one were unclear?


Here's what was asked about the UN:

"Is the UN defunct? Is it full of namby-pamby do-gooders who don't have the guts to stand up to certain people/governments? Or are they trying to be diplomatic? Or are they just a floppy arm of the US?"


Was that just nasty UN bashing?

Now, let's break it down:

Is the US defunct? Question borrowed from the UN thread and has the same validity as that one.

Is the US controlled by a bunch of self-serving warmongers? That's a question, not US bashing. The country either is or isn't and evidence should be available on which to base an answer.

Has its much vaunted constitution been so undermined and dismantled that it really serves no purpose at all? Same again.

Should the rest of us finally just bite the bullet and ignore them like deep down we know we want to? This is one that does call for some statement of opinions, but, again, there are probably lots of arguments based on quantifiable factors (economic and military, for example) which could be brought to the discussion.

So. I didn't mean the post to be US bashing. I also didn't think that straightforward questions would be dismissed. Oh well.

Oh, and Ste, your suggested "rephrasing" of my questions is actually not anything like a "rephrasing": you're asking a different question. In answer to your question, yes, I think that anti-Americanism is racism. Now, again, I asked questions about the American administration and the American constitution and about the viability of the US as a state and about what non-American researchers felt each of their countries' foriegn relations stance should be toward the US. If these questions are going to be dismissed out of hand and labeled as racism, then I guess the answers to a few of the questions have been made obvious.

Alright App, I knew there was something missing, I just couldn't see what.


I agree that it's a label, but we label things for a reason. It is different to 'Yank-bashing', because 'Yanks' are people. I found a dictionary definition of anti-American: 'Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.' That's what the label seems to mean.

It's as if anti-Americanism is a form of reverse nationalism. People who indulge in anti-Americanism seem to take pride in *not* being American, and reminding people of this frequently.


'often used by people who want to avoid discussion and who don't [want] others in said discussion.'

I'm curious, why do you say this? I recognise anti-Americanism as a form of bigotry, wouldn't you call someone on a racist, homophobic, sexist, or overtly nationalistic remark?



anhaga,

Ok, if you break the whole thing down you find an excuse to start another thread that will be blatantly anti-American from a Researcher who is anti-American. But it's an excuse.

The UN question was asked in a different context in a sincere manner and spirit. Your question hints at bitterness and anger with a whole other country. That exists elsewhere on this site (and in this forum too). There's no need to go over this again because we all know where it will lead.


However, I'll presume for now that I'm wrong about all of the above (though I don't think I am) and go through your questions:

'Is the US defunct?'

Defunct, adj., 'Having ceased to exist or live'. No, the US is up and running, though with an arrogant and incompetant government.

'Is the US controlled by a bunch of self-serving warmongers?'

Yep. We all know this.

'Has its much vaunted constitution been so undermined and dismantled that it really serves no purpose at all?'

No, the US constitution is an admirable document. It is under assault from Ashcroft's Justice Dept., but it will survive, it has been through rougher times.

'Should the rest of us finally just bite the bullet and ignore them like deep down we know we want to?'

As much as you or I don't like it, the US is important in this world. Ignorance is never a good thing. But go ahead, see if the US cares.


'Now, again, I asked questions about the American administration and the American constitution and about the viability of the US as a state and about what non-American researchers felt each of their countries' foriegn relations stance should be toward the US.'

Fair enough, but your reputation preceeds you, remember.


Ste

Thank you, Ste. I have to say that I agree with your assessment. I expect many here wouldn't. As for my reputation preceding me I feel that I must point out a number of my posts some time ago on the dreaded WWW Americans thread where I tried to hold back researchers who were trying to bash America. I ended up just leaving that thread for a long time after an American researcher asked me what specific grievances Canada had with the U.S. I answered him carefully and in a spirit of honesty and the concerns I raised were dismissed as "not that much, really." I felt at that time that it was appropriate to just back away from the discussion, and that's what I did. But that kind of dismissive attitude to grievances that truly affect people's lives deeply is not something that furthers discussions.

Again, Ste, despite my reputation, I asked the questions honestly, and your brief answers are the same brief answers I would give to my questions. I'm truly sorry I started this.

"I'm curious, why do you say this?"

because in reality this is what the lebells are used for, requardless of definitions.

It's not that I dislike you (it's the opposite in fact) or violently disagree with you (I obviously don't), it's just that I have a feeling of dread knowing where this will go. And we've seen it before and it's really tiring to see over and over.

Thanks for tolerating my previous post which *could* have been taken a totally different way, which I was a bit scared of but I prefer to be frank sometimes.

'Again, Ste, despite my reputation, I asked the questions honestly, and your brief answers are the same brief answers I would give to my questions.'

I believe you, and that means that I was wrong. But my initial perception would have been the same from others, I think...



App,

Are other 'labels', such a 'sexist' or 'homophobe', ways to censor discussions on gender issues or sexuality?


Ste

Just to try to modify my reputation, Ste:

Some time ago, Jodan (from Ohio) was working on a now defunct "United States of America" H2G2 University Project. He asked me to do an entry on the War of 1812. Take a look at it: A1021294

If there was ever a chance to indulge in US bashing, this was it. But I even admitted that it wasn't Canadians that burned down the White House, for goodness sake!

I'd much rather have a reasoned discussion with the extremists on both sides in the hope that there could be some education and reason could prevail. I often despair of the reasoned discussion ever happening, however, let alone the education.

"Are other 'labels', such a 'sexist' or 'homophobe', ways to censor discussions on gender issues or sexuality?"

It's like I said, actual use vs definition. Your correlation to 'sexist' and 'homophobe' is a far stretch at best. Very rarely have I seen actual 'yank bashing' etc not based in some substance but often I've seen the labells come out to shut down conversation.

I'll quote myself "It's like I said, actual use vs definition."

"Is the US defunct? Is it controlled by a bunch of self-serving warmongers? Has its much vaunted constitution been so undermined and dismantled that it really serves no purpose at all? Should the rest of us finally just bite the bullet and ignore them like deep down we know we want to?"

Just how, pray tell, is this "Anti-American"???????????

I can only assume that unless:
a) you are American
b) agree with anything and everything the United States or any of its representatives say or does

one is "Anti-American".

Strangely enough, most of the population of the planet:
a) is not American
b) does not agree with anything and everything the United States or any of its representatives say or does
c) bloody tired of being called "Anti-American" when they take exception to the United Stated foisting its own special brand of "what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own".

Many Americans talk fondly of the right to free speech (which includes the right to question and debate) but get bent out of shape when anyone else, and even people within their own borders exercise that right.

You know, there are some strong feelings out here. And there are some strong feelings in there. As I mentioned before, I've had the experience of being careful and honest and detailed and calm about those feelings and being dismissed for feeling anything all about injury and murder at the hands of agents of the American government. Apparition is correct: there is a lot of knee-jerk labeling of posts as anti-American. And there are a lot of posts that don't really provide much support for their emotional content within the posts themselves. Sometimes, of course, providing that support within a post can be difficult. To be honest, when I first saw the UN thread and read its first post, it struck me as being very dismissive of the UN. Later rereading of the post made me realize that it wasn't necessarily so. I hope that researchers will reread the original post on this thread and some of my followups before they jump to a conclusion that is at either extreme. I realize that there is potential for much repetition of previous nastiness here. I hope it won't happen. I'm hoping that there could actually be a dialogue. Maybe I shouldn't have posted all four questions at once. But that's done now. And Ste has offered a set of brief answers to the questions. I suspect there is room for a debate and a discussion here that doesn't have to descend to the levels that some threads have.

We all do have some interest in coming to a better understanding of all this: There is a real feeling of grievance out here in the rest of the world. Should we not try to understand it? Would it not be better for all of us to understand what is the result of real injury and what is the result of misunderstanding or misperception? Am I ridiculous in my hope?

anhaga



App,

'It's like I said, actual use vs definition.'

I understand, and it's a fair point. But you have to agree that there is more to anti-Americanism than simply a label for people to use to shut down or avoid difficult discussions. It's a global trend! What I'm interested in is what this particular -ism *is*.



Mudhooks,

'Just how, pray tell, is this "Anti-American"'

I though I made myself clear, I'll elaborate:

The questions were asked by a Researcher who has in the past been seen to be partaking in a certain amount of anti-Americanism. Each question is asked with a deep anti-American cynicism, e.g., 'self-serving warmongers', 'much vaunted constitution', 'should we ignore them'. It hardly makes for a good debate when questions are phrased in a way that will alienate and anger a side and instantly polarise opinions. It's not constructive. The questions were hostile to America, it is anti-American.


'I can only assume that unless:
a) you are American
b) agree with anything and everything the United States or any of its representatives say or does one is "Anti-American"'

Do you realise how that is in no way logical?

'Many Americans talk fondly of the right to free speech (which includes the right to question and debate) but get bent out of shape when anyone else, and even people within their own borders exercise that right.'

And do you realise that that simply isn't true, and is quite irrational. Do you live here? Where are you getting this from, Researchers on h2g2?




Have you even entertained or considered that being anti-American might be ok? Is it? America could probably do with a good shouting at. I clearly want to debate this (I've said as much), but I ironically get the feeling I'm being told to shut up!


Ste