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

Superb post anhaga, thanks for seeing eye to eye with me on this one

Ste

Oh, goodness, I've forgotten something very important.

Ste:

There's too many simulposts!

Now, here's the hard part: I agree with Mudhooks, too!

I don't think my initial questions were particularly loaded. The terms did have an emotional content, but the emotional content was taken from the common vocabulary of our time. And you, Ste, agreed that the country was controlled by "self-serving warmongers" (and in fact said that "we all know that". While I agree with pretty much everything Ste has posted on the subject (including the ) I don't agree that the questions were inherently anti-American. If I were to ask "Is the Canadian Province of Alberta controlled by a bunch of self-serving moneygrubbers?" I would not be asking a question that was inherently anti-Alberta, and I can't imagine a single Albertan taking such a question that way. Different Albertans would answer the question in different ways from "bloody right" to "no, Ralph is wonderful". But it's a question about a government, not about a people. (I realize that many of you will have no awareness of Alberta politics, and there's no reason you should. I'm just using Alberta for the sake of illustration. By the way, the government of Alberta is a bunch of self-serving moneygrubbers.) And, I certainly don't think the questions I asked in post number one where any more loaded than the questions in post number one of the UN thread, on which they were modeled.

(did I mention , Ste?)

'I don't agree that the questions were inherently anti-American.'

They're not. That's the point I made earlier. If you break the questions down individually, then yeah, they seem fine. But taken as a whole, and taken from who they were from, the whole post was anti-American. I don't think anything particularly constructive could have come out of it. But, I think we've rescued this discussion pretty well.

Let's move past this and answer some questions that have come up because of this thread. Some people here (including myself) are obviously not going to agree with each other about some specific things. That's fine.

Let's agree to disagree on the questions and deal with the issues that have arisen.

()

Okay, I get it. It's sort of like my initial reaction to the UN questions. I figured "Oh, jeez, now they're going to start ripping into the UN", when, in fact, that wasn't necessarily the point.

Okay. nuf said.

You know, many's the time I tried to steer the WWW Americans thread back to the point of the original post (trying to understand what the world's beef was about). Maybe that can happen coherently here. I'd love it.

But I might go to bed soon.

BTW: the talk of steers and beef in my previous post, together with earlier mentions of Alberta, have nothing to do with any recent American border closures or anything.

'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"'
"The questions were asked by a Researcher who has in the past been seen to be partaking in a certain amount of anti-Americanism."

In other words, not the content, but the person who posed the question should be considered "Anti-American".


"Do you realise how that is in no way logical?"

It is a perfectly logical statement.... of course, if you don't bother to include the conclusion, it is easy to muddy things and say it is illogical...

What i actually wrote was"
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".

'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?"

It is perfectly true. Cases in point.

The Canadian politician who expressed her opinion that George Bush was a moron.... The US pressured the Canadian government to fire her which it, regrettably, did.

Susan Sarandon....

The gentlemen who were arrested for wearing t-shirts with peace slogans on them in a mall in the US....

Protesters at Kent State

... and people here, including myself, who express an opinion about United States policy.

"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!"

Asking if "being Anti-American might be ok" in the context of the question being asked is comparing apples and pianos....

I respect the right of everyone to have a differing opinion whether on this subject or any other unless it decends into personal attack, slander, or is otherwise offensive.

Yes, America does deserve being shouted at (mostly to be heard over the giant sucking noise eminating from the Whitehouse), but there is a difference between discussing and debating, and simply stating that anything one doesn't agree with as "Anti-American".

That should have read:

"The questions were asked by a Researcher who has in the past been seen to be partaking in a certain amount of anti-Americanism."

In other words, not the content, but the person who posed the question should be considered "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?"

It is a perfectly logical statement.... of course, if you don't bother to include the conclusion, it is easy to muddy things and say it is illogical...

What i actually wrote was"
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".

'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?"

It is perfectly true. Cases in point.

The Canadian politician who expressed her opinion that George Bush was a moron.... The US pressured the Canadian government to fire her which it, regrettably, did.

Susan Sarandon....

The gentlemen who were arrested for wearing t-shirts with peace slogans on them in a mall in the US....

Protesters at Kent State

... and people here, including myself, who express an opinion about United States policy.

"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!"

Asking if "being Anti-American might be ok" in the context of the question being asked is comparing apples and pianos....

I respect the right of everyone to have a differing opinion whether on this subject or any other unless it decends into personal attack, slander, or is otherwise offensive.

Yes, America does deserve being shouted at (mostly to be heard over the giant sucking noise eminating from the Whitehouse), but there is a difference between discussing and debating, and simply stating that anything one doesn't agree with as "Anti-American".

"The questions were asked by a Researcher who has in the past been seen to be partaking in a certain amount of anti-Americanism."

I'm hoping that we've established, or at least suggested, that I (the Researcher in question) have also in the past be seen to be partaking in a certain amount of reining in of the anti-Americanism. So, yeah, the questions were coloured by other peoples perceptions of me. Great. Now lets colour the questions with what we've clarified about them and (hopefully) about me. Nobody who has read my posts would imagine that I don't have some disagreements with the Bush administration and with some of the fundamentals of the American system. I hope nobody who has read a goodly portion of my posts would imagine that I have any big issue with the American people. Now, the questions come to some degree out of discussions on various threads and from events in the world around us. There are real questions out there about what's happening to the Constitution in the US. There are real questions about the character of the people in power. There are real questions about how the rest of the world should deal with the US (this has been exhibited most recently in the speeches to the UN General Assembly). And I think it is a valid question to ask what exactly the future shape of the US will be, particularly if there is a Bush victory in the next election.

right now we're clarifying positions and I think this is good. I do hope that at some point when positions have been clarified the discussion will continue and be very interesting.

Who's here? Tell us some things. I know a little of Mudhooks and of Ste, but maybe some things of relevance should be posted by those who wish to take part, even the lurkers, as well.

Despite my reputation, I don't have a huge beef with America. I suspect a lot of my reputation comes from the fact that I post a large number of stories about events in Iraq and Afghanistan. I make those postings because a number of researchers have mentioned that they don't seem to get these stories from their local news outlets. I have made statements to the effect that there is often a terribly provincial view manifest by some people in the US. I feel that there is often a subtext of unconcern for what is actually a quite big world of people out there. Well, that's the impression I get.

So, hopefully some others will lay their cards on the table, as well. Didn't I say I was going to bed?

Mudhooks,

'In other words, not the content, but the person who posed the question should be considered "Anti-American".'

No, it's the whole thing. Not the person, not each individual question, the whole initial post. Please try not to put words in my mouth.


'It is a perfectly logical statement.... of course, if you don't bother to include the conclusion, it is easy to muddy things and say it is illogical...'

I quoted you (post 20):
'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"'

I added the conclusion to the previous sentance because it was a fragment. Please do not accuse me of things that I did not do when you cannot even read a post. It's this kind of hostile approach to a discussion which causes these feelings.

Your logic is: "Anti-Americans are hostile to the people, government, policies of the USA. Therefore, if you are a non-American or you do not 'agree with anything and everything the United States... says or does', you are anti-American". See the problems there? Being American or not is irrelevant. To be 'pro-American' or non-anti-American you do not have to agree with anything and everything, do you?

I am non-American and I disagree with most of the governments policies. Am I anti-American? This is actually the discussion I am trying to initiate here. All you can provide is entrenched, bitter, unyielding, accusatory claptrap.


'Cases in point...'

People are/were more likely to speak out in favour of the status quo in times of nationalism and fear. The very fact that Ms. Sarandon and others spoke out shows that there is free speech. The range of opinions in the US is far wider than in Europe (not sure about Canada and NZ, but I assume so) and people are far more likely to speak their mind and let you know what they think about any given subject, hence the clashes of opinion. The terrible US media don't help either.

'The Canadian politician who expressed her opinion that George Bush was a moron.... The US pressured the Canadian government to fire her which it, regrettably, did.'

Not very statesmanlike now is it? Would you expect the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer to call Gerhard Schroeder a f*ckwit?

'The gentlemen who were arrested for wearing t-shirts with peace slogans on them in a mall in the US.'

A very dumb security guard decided that the gentleman should leave, he refused and it became tresspassing. Stupid isolated event.

'Protesters at Kent State'

Um, this was the killing of four students by an over-eager and goaded national guard during the Vietnam War, yeah? Isolated horrific incident.

'... and people here, including myself, who express an opinion about United States policy.'

But you don't do you? It goes further. You make it sound like it's the UN or something. However, you basically slag off an entire country, an entire people, and a whole culture in a hostile manner. What reaction do you expect? I think you already know in advance.


'Asking if "being Anti-American might be ok" in the context of the question being asked is comparing apples and pianos....'

I'm just trying to get you to defend your hostile stance towards the USA in an attempt to discover what drives it. Go ahead, compare apples and pianos, fine.


'I respect the right of everyone to have a differing opinion whether on this subject or any other unless it decends into personal attack, slander, or is otherwise offensive.'

Have you considered that a great many people who percieve that their country or culture is under attack from someone will take it personally?


'...there is a difference between discussing and debating, and simply stating that anything one doesn't agree with as "Anti-American".'

Do you really think that is what I'm doing? Try reading the whole conversation and see how it has developed past the first few posts.





'"The questions were asked by a Researcher who has in the past been seen to be partaking in a certain amount of anti-Americanism."

'I'm hoping that we've established, or at least suggested, that I (the Researcher in question) have also in the past be seen to be partaking in a certain amount of reining in of the anti-Americanism.'

Yes, sorry, my fault. Instead of 'seen to be', replace with 'percieved to be'. Sorry.


'There are real questions out there about what's happening to the Constitution in the US.

'There are real questions about the character of the people in power.

'There are real questions about how the rest of the world should deal with the US.

'And I think it is a valid question to ask what exactly the future shape of the US will be, particularly if there is a Bush victory in the next election.'

...Which are all great questions, which I am too tired to even attempt to answer right now. Tomorrow perhaps. Now I think we have a debate on the go.


Ste

I've been thinking a bit about "anti-Americanism". Forgive me if this has been said before: I'm still waking up.

I posted last night that I agreed with Ste that anti-Americanism should probably be considered racism. But . . .

if it is just stated as a generalization like that, then I would have to argue that "pro-Americanism" must also be considered racism.

I think we have to be very careful, as Apparition has stated, with the labels. I think there are few who would claim that critical comment about America (government, constitution, weather, culture) is racism. Similarly, praise of America's real achievements is not racism.

But, knee-jerk condemnation of everything that comes out of America is racism, I think. And, the old "My country, right or wrong" worship of everything American is akin to the frightening drivel the white-supremicists spout.

Again, the labels should be avoided. If someone wants to offer criticism or praise, great. But please let there be a foundation.

Logic apparently isn't your strong suit....

and quite apart from the fact that the the so-called "fragmented sentence" was a series of points followed by a conclusion which you chose not include even in your rebuttal, your responses make less sense than your inital argument that Anhaga is "Anti-American" or that his series of questions are "Anti-American".

Logic apparently isn't your strong suit....

Quite apart from the fact that the the so-called "fragmented sentence" was a series of points followed by a conclusion which you chose not include even in your rebuttal, your responses make less sense than your inital argument that Anhaga is "Anti-American" or that his series of questions are "Anti-American".

As for putting word in my mouth:

"But you don't do you? It goes further. You make it sound like it's the UN or something. However, you basically slag off an entire country, an entire people, and a whole culture in a hostile manner. What reaction do you expect? I think you already know in advance."

At no time have I ever "slang off an entire country, an entire people, and a whole culture in a hostile manner" or any other manner.

Where you came up with that, I do not know.

As many people here know, I may think that the American government has some very dangerous policies, and that the President is a complete moron (if a very dangerous moron). However, as my father was American, my brother and two sisters are American, half my family is American (being one of the earliest families in America), I have the right to American citizenship though have not availed myself of it, and have lived in the United States, I am hardly hostile to Americans in generla or American culture, per se.

Much of my posting somehow became lost...

I will try and recall what else I had included.

Regarding Susan Sarandon. Quite apart from being personally attacked and receiving death-threats, and her children neing threatened, she has been effectively black-balled by the entertainment industry as w whole.

Regarding Kent state:

You cannot seriously consider the shootings which resulted in the deaths of 4 people as an event in isolation from the all the other events which resulted from the American government's reaction to anti-war protest and civil action. I am sorry that space does not permit me to put before you every single incident in the entire Vietnam Era which exemplifies intollerance of the right of free speech being denied.

Regarding the men wearing t-shirts. The son chose to remove his t-shirt and was released. The father was arrested and charged and, when last I heard, was awaiting a court hearing. The mall security and the police chose tp take men's right to free speech away from them.

A case in point which I mentioned elsewhere but think it relevant here. My father, who spoke out in support of civil rights and against the Atom bomb was put on "the list" by the FBI. I and my entire family also went on "the list" and, despite my being a Canadian citizen and my mother having divorced way back in 1961, we remain on "the list".

Does that make me hate Americans? It certainly does not.

Do I hate the American government for this? No, I do not.

I do however, hate the policy that put my father's standing up and being counted as a lover of Freedom for all people, in jeopardy.

Where has this thread gone wrong?

1) The initial question was loaded with emotional language. That makes it difficult for anyone to respond to it initially in logical terms... our emotions respond instead.

2) The initial question had too many questions, each attacking from a different angle, making a full-on assault.

Anhaga, I do understand and appreciate that you were simply borrowing language from the initial post in the thread on the UN. To be honest, I wasn't very happy with the way that question was asked, either. It did evolve into an analytical discussion of the UN, so all was not lost.

But I think we do have to propose a bit of structure to initial questions, to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. It's not a good habit to get into.

3) Mudhooks, you are way out of line. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

In what way was this a personal attack?

Nothing I said could possibly be construed as a personal attack. If this was considered so, I do apologise.

In fact, I was accused of "slanging off" the United States, its people and its culture. As I did not do so, I think I would have more to complain about than anyone. And, yet, I am not complaining.

"Logic apparently isn't your strong suit...."

Blatherskite:

we agree about the start of both the UN thread and this one. Based on the patching up of the discussion that Ste and I did last night, I hope that there can still be a reasonable discussion here. But, in case it does just go to hell and we all get fed up, I swould like to recommend again a book that I've brought up on other threads:

World on Fire, by Amy Chua. I found it really helped me to come to a better understanding of why the world is feeling the way it seems to feel about the US.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?N=35&R=1501023&act=A03&Item=978038550302&Section=books&Catalog=Books&Lang=en&mscssid=C7BBH9U28XUR8P1J8W9H31FS45KM6J98&WSID=140915E3EE5AE0A2404B905361AFAD02E7265325

It really, really is well worth the read.

My apologies, Mudhooks... I should not have singled you out, because after taking a more careful read through here, I see that there was emotional language from all sides.

I think this forum stands out as an example of exactly what I was trying to avoid by forming this society. I think we need to discuss further guidelines to prevent this from happening again. Those that are on the ODS page were written as a starting point, and I had hoped to build on them with suggestions from the society.

Anhaga... interesting book, judging by its write-up. I think it would be well-suited to a separate thread, with a separate question dealing with the issues raised in it.

I honestly don't think this particular thread is worth saving anyway... no matter how well the later subject matter evolves into something more productive, there remains the likelihood that a newcomer will respond to the beginning without checking the backlog.