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

"Yes I don't understand SWL's analysis. It seems very much to me that all the negativity has occurred since Shrub became president, and his foreign policy since 9/11. I am a leftish person politically, many of my friends are too. Like me they generally like American culture and very much value its contribution to the cultural richness of the west. I don't get the feeling amongst people I know here in London that there's a particular resentment or envy towards America; just a huge dislike of the Bush administration. I like the basic social, cultural and economic situation here in London where I live. I have no sense of inferiority. It's just different. America has developed the way it has for historical reasons, which are relevant to its context. We have our culture and traditions, according to our history and context. I like both. Variety is the spice of life."

I'm not sure that's the case. The animosity towards the US came well before George W Bush got in. I can remember similar dark talk about "American imperialism" and "warmongering" when Clinton was bombing Milosevic's Yugoslavia. It can't be explained away as a reaction against Bush.

I think a lot of it is Anglo-French resentment at their loss of world influence in the 1950s. Despite all the rubbish anglospherists talk Britain is very different from the US in how it deals with things; we tend to be prissy about being by-the-book ("just not cricket") which the Americans have never understood. I think, privately, most British administrations wish we were in charge of American-led initiatives to Cold War opposition to Communism to the War Against Terrorism. To be honest, they're probably right even though the Anglo-French response to Fascism was clumsy.

Well I just don't know what you mean about Anglo-French resentment. So maybe SWL is right to a degree in blaming the media. Because I just never get that impression from other people in real life. I never read tabloids, and I only tend to watch more analytical and sensible news programmes, which tend to intelligently look at facts. But its probably true some aspects of the media have an axe to grind.


Culturally, I really like the feeling of both being part of the European tradition and the American sphere of inflence.

>Well I just don't know what you mean about Anglo-French resentment.

I thought I explained it quite well: Britain and France used to have the sort of world-spanning influence America now enjoys before WWII when both countries exhausted their economies and (later) lost their overseas empires. That left both in a reduced state as constituent members of the US-led NATO alliance. It's the reason there is such constant friction between the USA and France (who, believe it or not, used to be on very good terms) and why Britain is so pre-occupied with keeping close to the USA in the hope of maintaining some influence.

It's different with other countries. Until very recently, Germany was very pro-American but has distanced itself from her a little (I think due to growing German self-confidence); Poland has become very pro-American in the way that Germany used to be.

Yes you explained it in the abstract sense, of Britain/France. All I'm saying is who are these people in Britain and france who think that way? Countries don't think things. People do. Are you talking about the 'establishment' then? I think its far too simplistic to talk about 'countries'. To my mind all these things are full of great complexity and contradiction. I don't know any Brits who feel envious about our lost Empire, maybe the French do?

I agree one can't *just* look at anecdotal evidence of one's own friends and acquaintances. It's just when it so contrasts with personal experience it's hard to take it seriously. In general I tend to keep well away from people who are full of resentment, envy and cynicism. I basically see them as inadequate in some way.

It's one of the reasons I started this thread in ASk. I didn't just want some thread full of abstraction and theory. My reason for feeling good again due to the election in the USA, are very much a gut reaction as I made clear.

And before Clinton was Nixon with a little Watergate problem. Humorist Dave Barry says there is a "dumb ray" in the attic of the White House. Intelligent people like Nixon get elected, then say things like, "I know what let's do, let's record our conversation while we talk about committing felonies!"

And before that was Johnson, who inspired songwriter Tom Lehrer:

http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/t/tomlehrer3903/sendthemarines185498.html

Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!

Sort of the US version of England's "gunboat diplomacy"?

Interesting link Pedro. I note it was not quite reported by the BBC that the average UK budget would only last 11 months in France or Germany, although it does point out that the cost of living is far lower in the US. GDP is only relevant in terms of cost of living.

Somebody alluded earlier to the impression that all things are possible in the US. I would agree with that. It is a very "can-do" mindset. It's important to remember that, when the media try to draw parallels between Republican/Democrat and Tory/Labour, they are way off base. It's more like comparing Tory/Tory. Socialism, as it is understood in Europe, would be met with utter horror by a great many Americans.

And I think that is where the great resentment lies with many. The great social experiment that Europe set out on post 1945 hasn't eclipsed the US as it was intended. Strong unions haven't delivered a workers paradise and the welfare state has not created a more just and healthy society than the US. The big one we hear about is obesity levels in America. But it was reported recently that Scots children are fatter than their US counterparts.

The US has become the boogeyman for European politics. We hear constantly of the great evils perpetrated by the US, but America gives more in charity aid than the whole of Europe. America never flinches from acting for what are undoubtedly Western interests, while Europeans argue, squabble and prevaricate.

I'm a huge fan of the US, based upon fairly extensive travels and quite a few family members living there. Having a cousin who helped organise the "Million Mom March", who has 2 daughters working in the White House, I get a fairly good picture of Americans.

One of the Objection some people had against Wallace Simpson was that she was American. This was long before Vietnam, G.I.s in Europe and Hollywoods re-writting of WWII, even before GW Bush was born.




Obesity is not the only measure of health?




America and Americans do somethings very well by any measure you care to use but change the subject being analysed and their success in some areas actually causes failure in others.

I think its fair to talk about what the US administrations and American people are like, good at and bad at.

What seems unfair is the attention the latter gets this side of the pond but it should always be taken into account that like the Royal Family or Britney Spears say, that prominence means people will see and talk about your duck-ups even though its your success that gets you noticed.

one love

<>

The death rate in the US is 8.26/1000. In the UK it is 10.09/1000. A wide enough measure? I highlighted obesity because the media here seem to love showing film of lardy-assed Americans.

"And I think that is where the great resentment lies with many. The great social experiment that Europe set out on post 1945 hasn't eclipsed the US as it was intended. Strong unions haven't delivered a workers paradise and the welfare state has not created a more just and healthy society than the US. The big one we hear about is obesity levels in America. But it was reported recently that Scots children are fatter than their US counterparts."

Was the stated intention of the European "social markets" of the post-war years to eclipse the United States or deal with the problems of postwar Europe. Certainly, the intention in the UK was to deal with poor housing, poor health and gross social inequality. Thumbing our noses at the USA never came into it.

"The US has become the boogeyman for European politics. We hear constantly of the great evils perpetrated by the US, but America gives more in charity aid than the whole of Europe. America never flinches from acting for what are undoubtedly Western interests, while Europeans argue, squabble and prevaricate."

Major instances where "Western interests" were under threat since WWII:

Korea (1950) - substantial European input
Vietnam (1960s) - war actually started by the French. The Americans took over. And then lost.
Persian Gulf (1991) - Substantial European input.
Afghanistan (2001) - Substantial European input.

The only one where the US went in whilst much of Europe (although far from all) didn't was Iraq in 2003 and the naysayers might well have been right about that one.

Kosovo

>America never flinches from acting for what are undoubtedly Western interests

I also have to pick up more on this specificially as it's pure myth-making. The US acts (when it does) because it's expected to and because its interests are usually frontline. It's nothing to do with some sort of quality of national character. You only have to look at the USA's shortsighted not-our-problem isolationism during the early stages of WWI and WWII (and which also resurfaced in the early years of the Bush administration before 9/11 happened) to dismiss this notion.

>Kosovo

Substantial european input. Even the Germans got involved in that one.

Incidentally, talking of Kosovo, Clinton nervously refused to commit ground troops as he was afraid of a rightwing backlash after what had happened in Somalia. It was Blair (a European) who persuaded him that they might be necessary after all.

How long did it take for the Europeans to get their backsides into gear over Kosovo? And that was right on their doorsteps - inside Europe itself and it STILL took US leadership to end a genocide. Wasn't that the whole point of social and political policy in Europe post 1945 - to make sure it never happened again? Kosovo is a shameful indictment of European politics and showed that it is utterly incapable of even keeping the peace within it's own borders without US help.

<>

Why was it necessary for Blair to push the US into helping? Because the Europeans wouldn't do enough. The entire EU was incapable of confronting a tiny rogue state within minutes flight time of the major European capitals.

"How long did it take for the Europeans to get their backsides into gear over Kosovo? And that was right on their doorsteps - inside Europe itself and it STILL took US leadership to end a genocide. Wasn't that the whole point of social and political policy in Europe post 1945 - to make sure it never happened again?"

In a word: No. And I'm afraid I don't really buy the "American leadership" line. The Americans took a long time to act over Kosovo and when they did it was with some timidity. Blair (a European, remember) showed more resolve than his US counterpart.

"Kosovo is a shameful indictment of European politics and showed that it is utterly incapable of even keeping the peace within it's own borders without US help."

Kosovo was undoubtably a shambles but the idea that it somehow all lies on Europe's shoulders is laughable. It extended out of the Yugoslav wars about which there was more than enough American non-intervention as anyone elses (and the faults in that can be laid more at the door of the UN than anyone else - plenty of European troops *wanted* to get more involved in stopping the militias, if you don't believe me go and read the first hand account "My War Gone By, I Miss It So"). Even when the US led (belated) action against Milosevic they were, as I said, rather timid and the war itself was hardly a prime example of successful intervention - it was carried out entirely from the air and the Yugoslav army's abuses were largely left unstopped until Serbia inevitably surrendered (far later than it was "supposed" to).

"Why was it necessary for Blair to push the US into helping? Because the Europeans wouldn't do enough. The entire EU was incapable of confronting a tiny rogue state within minutes flight time of the major European capitals."

Yugoslavia was not "tiny" and the Europeans looked pretty "capable" when they were dropping bombs on Belgrade. Basically, you're saying the Americans led a (belated) war on Yugoslavia that the Europeans both agreed to and joined in with and then trying to pretend that Europe was never interested in order to justify your continued simplistic comparisons of Europe and the USA.

Without American help, it's debateable if Europe would have done *anything* in Kosovo beyond sending more envoys and fact-finders. Absolutely nothing had been learned since the appeasement policies of the 30s.

We seem to be getting sidetracked rather

Additionally, a brief refresh of the crisis leading to the Kosovo war demonstrates that this was not about Europeans doing nothing until America stepped in. The "International Community" (read the EU and USA) had expressed concerns at Yugoslav Army operations long before the war and basically (together) slowly built-up a justification for military action against Yugoslavia. This was all done with agreement across the NATO alliance. If "Europe" had fiddled for too long then the USA was guilty of the same and if the USA pushed Milosevic over Kosovo then the EU did the same. In short, your take on events is wholly misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_crisis#The_Rambouillet_Conference_.28January.E2.80.93March_1999.29

>Without American help, it's debateable if Europe would have done *anything*...

Which doesn't mean anything at all. One could also argue that if Europe didn't give a damn about Kosovo then America would never have got involved in the first place. It's certainly not something to hang "inditements" on.