News Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing

[chound]

"The right of voters to elect more than 80,000 public officials"
In India in one state(Karnataka) 75,200 men and women are elected. Our democracy just does not deal with state and nation wide. It has 3 tiers all together. Nation - State - District & Village. For each village there is a group of elected representatives who look after that particular village. Considering the no. of total villages in India the figure would sky rocket!

 

[chound]

I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here (in the politics forum). I am about as middle of the road as you can get politically, but I am really getting tired of it. Show me a country that is perfect, that has no corruption, no politicians with an agenda, that hasn't used whatever power they have (if they have any) for their own benefit. I don't think we're perfect, no country is.

True! I guess you could take S'pore(for no corruption, etc.) as an example but its probably too insignificant, small.

 

[chound]

Now, imagine that there are mad dogs running around the house, and they've bitten already one child. There's also a bee hive at the back of the garden. So you decide to go and kick with your boots in the bee hive because you have "evidence that the bees are buddies with the mad dogs and are planning a massive attack on your children". You ask your neighbour to help you to kick with your boots in the bee hive, and he tells you not only that he will not do so, but that he thinks that that is a bad idea because everybody will now get bees on his hand ; moreover he tells you the story about the dogs being friends with the bees, he doesn't believe it ; he'd rather go with you after the dogs and let the bees alone. You tell him he's a stinking bastard, you will not talk to him again, and you go out kicking in the beehive. Don't you think that, after you've been stung all over (and the mad dogs too, so they get even nastier) that the neighbour would watch you through the window and have a good laugh with your face ?

A prequel to this:
You give flowers and food to the bees so that they can grow and sting others and biscuits to the mad dogs so that they can bite others.
They get bored of biting others and since you have stopped giving them more food they come to get your children.
A few years later... the story from vanesch's post

 

[Danger]

Have you been to Montreal?

You are kidding, right? I admit that I didn't visit it until '67 for Expo, but since my dad's side of the family is all in the Ottawa valley, I was there every 2 years after that until I moved back here in '78. It's one of the most beautiful and culturally diverse cities in Canada.

It really feels like they want to be part of France. If nothing else, Frenh Canadians want independence from Canada for largely cultural reasons.

Your understanding of Quebec culture is about as good as your understanding of Europe. There is a vocal minority (essentially the same as your 'Moral Majority', except that ours make sense) of radical francophone Quebecois who want to separate from Canada. They do not, for the most part, want to join France. They want to become an 'independent' country that remains within our borders, uses our currency and military, and yet not be subject to our laws. As for the 'distinct society' status that they already have, I believe that it only strengthens our nation. We were originally settled by the French, and some scraps with the English ensued, and we ended up multicultural. Since I'm not an expert on Quebec, I would suggest that you discuss the matter with IanSmith.

 

[vanesch]

True! I guess you could take S'pore(for no corruption, etc.) as an example but its probably too insignificant, small.

And they beat you up with sticks if you eat chewing gum

Everything has its price...

 

[vanesch]

A prequel to this:
You give flowers and food to the bees so that they can grow and sting others and biscuits to the mad dogs so that they can bite others.
They get bored of biting others and since you have stopped giving them more food they come to get your children.
A few years later... the story from vanesch's post

I think you missed the essence of my analogy

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

El Hombre Invisible, a couple of people in this thread thought I was fingering them
...
We could use some levity.

And lo, you provided it!

 

[Andy]

Origionally posted by Evo
Actually a quick search came up with a few member's posts and showing them as examples would probably be embarrasing to them, so no, I'm not going to list member's posts. If you are curious you won't have too much trouble finding the posts. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is stay tuned, there will be more.

lol, i will own up now! but that was back in the days of entropy and mr robin parsons!

 

[Evo]

lol, i will own up now! but that was back in the days of entropy and mr robin parsons!

No, I had a few others in mind.

Where the heck is jimmy p? I'm about ready to disown him and adopt you instead.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ hasn't posted for a while. I guess he's gone off to lick his wounds or maybe he's just fallen off the limb he climbed out on. .

Russ has a job to do and frankly, this thread isn't even as important to me as the ones in the other forums. The politics forum provides me with some entertainment, but I care very little about what goes on here. I care even less about the opinions of me of people who don't even know me.

 

[russ_watters]

No-one in this thrad has actually posted anything along the lines of "I dislike the Americans".

Yes, I know. Very few people are as up-front about their biases as I am. They prefer pot-shots and insinuations to coming right out and stating their opinion explicitly. Its easier that way - when you don't make a specific statement, there is nothing to back up.

You are the only person here to actually dislike an entire nation based on whatever limited experience of them you have had.

Once again, that isn't what I said. Please go back and reread it because you have misrepresented it in every response so far.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a vocal minority (essentially the same as your 'Moral Majority', except that ours make sense) of radical francophone Quebecois who want to separate from Canada.

I didn't say it was a majority position, I just said it exists.

They do not, for the most part, want to join France. They want to become an 'independent' country that remains within our borders, uses our currency and military, and yet not be subject to our laws.

Ok... but why? Its cultural, isn't it? That's why Quebec is bilingual, isn't it?

 

[russ_watters]

Just in case anyone missed it the first time...

Everyone has biases, guys. Everyone has preconceptions. Everyone buys into stereotypes to one extent or another.

Russ I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they don't. You are one of a select few.

This is better than Dilbert, thanks.

 

[vanesch]

Its cultural, isn't it? That's why Quebec is bilingual, isn't it?

I don't know so much about Quebec, but my small native country (Belgium) also has 2 cultures having to live together, the minority (about 40%) being french speaking; and indeed, a serious problem with those people is that they have a kind of superiority feeling about their own linguistic culture which makes it harder for them to learn the other one. This resulted in a very complicated government structure for instance.
So I have more reasons to be anti-french than anti-american, if that were a reason. But again, I think it is silly to be anti-"an entire nation".
French speaking people are quite chauvinist about their culture and language... I know in fact only one other language and culture of which the native speakers often have the same attitude (no, it is not the Germans, and not the Spanish either) However, it has an advantage too. If you speak their language and respect their culture, they suddenly become very very kind and you are more than welcome with them. So it is very easy to get integrated with french speaking people: just speak french (even with errors). That cannot be said about any other culture, where you remain a barbarian for ever :-)

 

[Danger]

That's why Quebec is bilingual, isn't it?

The whole country is bilingual. Quebec just happens to be predominately francophone, and has language laws to help keep it that way, but only a very few individuals are impolite about it. It's like comparing the number of Mafia members to the total population of Italy.

 

[Smurf]

French speaking people are quite chauvinist about their culture and language... I know in fact only one other language and culture of which the native speakers often have the same attitude (no, it is not the Germans, and not the Spanish either) However, it has an advantage too. If you speak their language and respect their culture, they suddenly become very very kind and you are more than welcome with them. So it is very easy to get integrated with french speaking people: just speak french (even with errors). That cannot be said about any other culture, where you remain a barbarian for ever :-)

I think the French are very much misunderstood about this. It's indeed true that they can act Chauvanist, but I've never had a problem with them (during my three years living there), and I'll tell you why. I wouldn't call them arrogant, they don't insist on your speaking French, as long as you try, in other words, respect their culture. The French have to put up with huge amouts of arrogant and annoying british tourists all the time, and I'm sure you'll find that indeed the bigger the city, the more chauvanist the people will seem (Paris is the worst of course). When I first moved there I didn't speak barely any french, but the people would still be very nice to me even when I'd start conversations with "Bonjour... est que tu parle anglais?" (and if you don't know what that means it's no wonder you get heat from the french).

Meh, my point kind of got lost somewhere, basicly I don't think they act any worse than any other culture does towards foreigners. I don't think it'd be fair to expect anything more.

P.S. This isn't directed at you Vanesch, I'm just leading on from your post.

 

[Smurf]

I didn't say it was a majority position, I just said it exists.

Actually your exact words were "Frenh Canadians want to become an independant country". So not only did you imply they were a majority, you generalized that an absolute 100% wanted that. You need only look at the fact that the last referendum to leave Canada failed to realize that's false.

Ok... but why? Its cultural, isn't it? That's why Quebec is bilingual, isn't it?

Why? They feel the language (and partially the culture) is threatened by the overwhelming majority of anglophones. A really bad answer to the problem if you ask me.

And yes, as Danger said, the whole country is (officially) bilingual.

 

[vanesch]

I wouldn't call them arrogant, they don't insist on your speaking French, as long as you try, in other words, respect their culture.
...
P.S. This isn't directed at you Vanesch, I'm just leading on from your post.

I think indeed we're making the same point.

 

[Smurf]

How did we get here from Anti-Americanism?

 

[PerennialII]

Yes, I know. Very few people are as up-front about their biases as I am. They prefer pot-shots and insinuations to coming right out and stating their opinion explicitly. Its easier that way - when you don't make a specific statement, there is nothing to back up. Once again, that isn't what I said. Please go back and reread it because you have misrepresented it in every response so far.

Ok, I'm trying to grasp some of the differences here. Why being not "as upfront about their biases" isn't the good thing here ... Being able to focus on specific issues rather than immediately drawing borders and making it an issue you need to "win" with us against others mentality should be the whole point of discussion (and this makes Art's statement belonging to something else than Dilbert, or then it would make up a good strip anyways). This is something that I've a hard time understanding especially in "anti-Americanism" and related conversations, since if you've an opinion, that isn't anti anything but an opinion (a perception being repeated a great number of times in this thread). And an opinion is formed on the basis of "biases" for sure, but being able to discuss and reform your opinions - and not making it personal and drawing e.g. nation spanning parallels - is the kind of "non-biasness" we're talking here. Doesn't sound too difficult IMHO, it's the element of any meaningful discourse. How can't we get over this or what is breaking this part of the communication ?

 

[Art]

Russ has a job to do and frankly, this thread isn't even as important to me as the ones in the other forums. The politics forum provides me with some entertainment, but I care very little about what goes on here. I care even less about the opinions of me of people who don't even know me.

Reminds me of the story of Brer rabbit, brer fox and the gooseberries and this rather apt quote by Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks" Hamlet Act3 (not sure Brer fox was a bigot though)

 

[Andy]

Origionally posted by Evo
Where the heck is jimmy p? I'm about ready to disown him and adopt you instead.

lol, he's now a full time gambler, don't get chance to speak to him anymore, he's got new "friends". Adoption sounds good though!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Yes, I know. Very few people are as up-front about their biases as I am. They prefer pot-shots and insinuations to coming right out and stating their opinion explicitly. Its easier that way - when you don't make a specific statement, there is nothing to back up.

What a depressing world you live in. Maybe the reason why no-one on this thread EXCEPT YOU has claimed to dislike a particular people is... because they don't? This, of course, won't quite give you the safety in numbers you no doubt are hoping for by claiming everyone else in the world is just like you, but is probably closer to the mark.

Once again, that isn't what I said. Please go back and reread it because you have misrepresented it in every response so far.

You said you dislike the French. Not some of the French, not aspects of the French, not some French wines or french windows - you said the French.

 

[Art]

Just in case anyone missed it the first time... This is better than Dilbert, thanks.

For my reply ref part 1 of post no. 123 from El Hombre Invisible - Ditto

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Everyone has biases, guys. Everyone has preconceptions. Everyone buys into stereotypes to one extent or another.

Russ I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they don't. You are one of a select few.

I have to agree with Russ that this seems to be a rather absurd statement.

 

[PerennialII]

A world without objectivity is one where people can't formulate an independent thought. Although the specific nature of the "biases" is the problem in this case.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I have to agree with Russ that this seems to be a rather absurd statement.

Yes I agree, but justifying racism with this argument is equally absurd. It would be like Patrick Bateman justifying mass homicide by saying "Well, EVERYONE feels annoyed from time to time." Yes, we do all have biases, we do all have preconceived ideas and, in the absence of experience, we do all look for stereotypical behaviour in people. You can rationalise this in one of two ways: either believe your own ignorant guff and buy into these stupid generalisations, or realize that you are not really an authority on the subject and overcome them.
In my experience I have discovered two things.
1. People you meet that you have preconceived ideas about generally behave more like you than you expected. People find it very easy to assume a stance based on no experience, and hard to maintain it when confronted with the people they thought they already had pegged. In my experience, the most frequent example is homosexuals. I've lost count of how many of my straight friends had an inexplicable hatred of gay people that they couldn't maintain once they met my gay friends. I believe the same goes with race. The truth is, people are people everywhere.
2. People generally latch on to a negative stereotype of a certain people and, in cases where that stereotype proves true, feel that their opinion has been justified (see Russ' trip to Paris, not exactly a country representative of France as a whole). Thing is, EVERY country has these stereotypes. Are arrogant Parisians any worse than drunk British football hooligans, American rednecks or Dutch pickpockets working the Dam? People are very quick to point out the very worst in other cultures then plugging their fingers in their ears when anyone mentions their own.
That's two reasons why, while we may have preconceived ideas, only a fool would trust them.

 

[Andy]

I think we should just accept that not everybody likes everyone.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

But then one can't complain about anti-Americanism. The problem is, invariably the people who propagate ill-will towards one nation are the ones most upset about such feeling directed towards their own.

 

[Art]

I have to agree with Russ that this seems to be a rather absurd statement.

Russ used bias, preconceptions and sterotypes in the context of justifying his dislike of an entire race and even it's offshoots. I don't believe most people feel that way, certainly none of the people I personally know.

 

[Joel]

Ok, I'm trying to grasp some of the differences here. Why being not "as upfront about their biases" isn't the good thing here ... Being able to focus on specific issues rather than immediately drawing borders and making it an issue you need to "win" with us against others mentality should be the whole point of discussion (and this makes Art's statement belonging to something else than Dilbert, or then it would make up a good strip anyways). This is something that I've a hard time understanding especially in "anti-Americanism" and related conversations, since if you've an opinion, that isn't anti anything but an opinion (a perception being repeated a great number of times in this thread). And an opinion is formed on the basis of "biases" for sure, but being able to discuss and reform your opinions - and not making it personal and drawing e.g. nation spanning parallels - is the kind of "non-biasness" we're talking here. Doesn't sound too difficult IMHO, it's the element of any meaningful discourse. How can't we get over this or what is breaking this part of the communication ?

Excellent point a about the polarization, PerennialII. I want to add to this by making making a distinction between three types of anti-americanism.

When speaking about anti-anything I understand it simply as an uninformed, stereotypical opinion, a myth that is fostered by ignorant people. (Note the difference between a stereotypical and a biased opinion, the later is based on favoritism while the former is simply an irrational (negative) generalization.) This kind of anti-americanism is definitively condemmable and it does nothing but incite hatred.

Another understanding about anti-americanism seems to be that it is a biased opinion about america, an opinion that is more or less informed and that is based on someone's self-interest (ideological, real political, or whatever). These kinds of opinions could often be expressed with a lot more tact, but it can hardly be denied that politics is about competing interpretations and their acceptance.

Finally, I've seen anti-americanism used to label opinions that appear to have america's best interests in mind simply because they differ, there is no apparent bias against america (altough there may be internal bias, for example republic or democratic bias) or stereotypes involved. To use anti-americanism in this context seems to be simple mud slinging.

As I hope I have managed to illustrate, the tricky thing about using the anti-americanism (and anti-anything) label is that it can be used both to discredit dissent (third alternative) and to weed out persistent myths (first alternative). The second alternative is perhaps trickiest, because other interests must surely be voiced, but if they degenerate to simple bashing, they hardly have the desired influence (as it only becomes irritating).

There, my straw to the haystack.

 

[McGyver]

Sid Galt, why would you request discussion on a topic requiring referreral to a link and possible registration? I won't waste my time to view an external link, if you aren't willing to give your time to properly introduce its discussion!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Russ used bias, preconceptions and sterotypes in the context of justifying his dislike of an entire race and even it's offshoots. I don't believe most people feel that way, certainly none of the people I personally know.

The French are not a race, they are a country and a culture.

Russ has already pointed out that this assessment that he is a "racist" or that he "hates" all french people is inaccurate. He has been sure to elaborate on his original statement to clear up the confusion. Yet you and El Hombre seem to be making a field of calling him a racist or bigot. The majority of this thread has been reactionary name calling and it's entirely inane. Based on the comments here in this thread I would say it seems the two of you are guilty of the same closed mindedness you are complaining about... never mind I'll drop it.

At any rate.. Russ is neither racist nor bigot and I do not appreciate your, or anyone elses, insistence that he is.

 

[vanesch]

The French are not a race, they are a country and a culture.

Russ has already pointed out that this assessment that he is a "racist" or that he "hates" all french people is inaccurate.

Then what's the word for it ? Specific xenofobia ?

I think the criterium to find out whether you are anti-X or not, is to ask yourself, if I somehow have a choice to make between different things or people or whatever, some having an origin or a link to X, and others to Y, do I have a kind of a priori to avoid the X-related choice or not, for no other reason than that it is X-related. If that's the case, then you're anti-X.
In the case of Russ, say he's with a colleague and they meet two other engineers, one Japanese and one French, and they have to team up each with one of the guys, if Russ specifically prefers NOT to team up with the French, then he's anti-French. If he never considers driving a french car (and not because he happens to be fond of other brands but just because they are french) he's anti-french. If he is a-priori against each idea just because he knows it found its origin in a french mind, he's anti-french.

Using this criterium, I know I'm for sure not anti-american for instance. If Russ declares of himself to be anti-french, and if he agrees with the above definition (otherwise, I don't know what it means to be anti-X), then, with all respect, I find such attitude a sad mistake.

 

[Art]

The French are not a race, they are a country and a culture.

Russ has already pointed out that this assessment that he is a "racist" or that he "hates" all french people is inaccurate. He has been sure to elaborate on his original statement to clear up the confusion. Yet you and El Hombre seem to be making a field of calling him a racist or bigot. The majority of this thread has been reactionary name calling and it's entirely inane. Based on the comments here in this thread I would say it seems the two of you are guilty of the same closed mindedness you are complaining about... never mind I'll drop it.

At any rate.. Russ is neither racist nor bigot and I do not appreciate your, or anyone elses, insistence that he is.

Def'n of a race; - a tribe, nation etc.., a group of persons connected by common descent (such as French speaking people in Quebec and French people in France perhaps!). I suggest you consult a dictionary before contradicting me next time.
Russ' original mail was unequivocal so there was no 'confusion to clear'.

Now - a mea culpa: I'm anti-French. I'll admit it. Heck, I'm almost proud of it. I've been to Paris and Montreal and my experiences have shaped that opinion. France's "coalition of the unwilling" attitude has also shaped it.

So does this make me a "pot" for the anti-Bush/American's kettle? No. My dislike for the French and the liberal pseudo-intellectual crowd...

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The French are not a race, they are a country and a culture.

Russ has already pointed out that this assessment that he is a "racist" or that he "hates" all french people is inaccurate. He has been sure to elaborate on his original statement to clear up the confusion. Yet you and El Hombre seem to be making a field of calling him a racist or bigot. The majority of this thread has been reactionary name calling and it's entirely inane. Based on the comments here in this thread I would say it seems the two of you are guilty of the same closed mindedness you are complaining about... never mind I'll drop it.

At any rate.. Russ is neither racist nor bigot and I do not appreciate your, or anyone elses, insistence that he is.

My original comment was one of why I did not feel it was Russ' place to advise others on their political position, since a) he is biased, i.e. his past posts suggest his political affiliation advises his opinions on political matters, and b) he's is a self-confessed racist.

What we're coming down to here is the definitions of racism, hence Russ disagrees with my analysis, which is fair enough. I define it as a negative prejudice against all peoples of a specified race. I feel this is accurate and intuitive. Russ' comment fit this bill, but at the word 'racist' he recoils. Fair enough - who wouldn't?!? The hang up, though, is on the word, not the meaning. The meaning, quite clearly, is the content of Russ' post. Had I said I was anti-American, that I disliked the Americans, I very much doubt you would be standing up for me against accusations of racism.

I'm not here to call people names. My argument was actually against him advising others on a suitable political position.

You are also the first person I've seen define being adverse to ignorant generalisations of entire nations as 'closed-mindedness'. I'm guessing a coherent explanation of this is unlikely.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

My original comment was one of why I did not feel it was Russ' place to advise others on their political position, since a) he is biased, i.e. his past posts suggest his political affiliation advises his opinions on political matters, and b) he's is a self-confessed racist.

What we're coming down to here is the definitions of racism, hence Russ disagrees with my analysis, which is fair enough. I define it as a negative prejudice against all peoples of a specified race. I feel this is accurate and intuitive. Russ' comment fit this bill, but at the word 'racist' he recoils. Fair enough - who wouldn't?!? The hang up, though, is on the word, not the meaning. The meaning, quite clearly, is the content of Russ' post. Had I said I was anti-American, that I disliked the Americans, I very much doubt you would be standing up for me against accusations of racism.

I'm not here to call people names. My argument was actually against him advising others on a suitable political position.

You are also the first person I've seen define being adverse to ignorant generalisations of entire nations as 'closed-mindedness'. I'm guessing a coherent explanation of this is unlikely.

isn't this getting a little ridiculous? i mean, the guy has expressed an opinion and backed it up. he has made a summary judgement, in his own mind, so what?

these days, being called a 'racist' is probably the worst thing you could call someone. To do so simply because he holds a generalized opinion is simply ludicrous. Is he not free to express his views without being slandered?

It reminds me of how people in the USA, who criticize the USA's unwavering military support for Israel, are quickly decried as racist or anti-Semite. This is a load of crap, and is oppressive of the principles of self-expression that the USA was founded upon.

so let's drop this silliness, shall we?

 

[vanesch]

It reminds me of how people in the USA, who criticize the USA's unwavering military support for Israel, are quickly decried as racist or anti-Semite. This is a load of crap, and is oppressive of the principles of self-expression that the USA was founded upon.

But the difference is exactly there ! I think one should be free to criticize "the USA's unwavering military support for Israel" for instance. That doesn't make you a racist at all. However, if you say that you are anti-Jew because of their culture, well, eh, ... that's a different matter, isn't it.

But the point was exactly, in the beginning of the thread, that European intellectuals who dared to criticize US foreign politics were stamped as being anti-American (and hence, also anti-democratic, as if that were the logical consequence). Of course the example of the French government (and also people) - together with about three quarters of the rest of the world - opposing the US invasion in Iraq was pointed out. Up to here, I think we could all agree that this specific criticism of a US foreign policy should not be considered as anti-americanism in general, but in the article, it was.
Russ then sprung on the bandwagon and told us about his pride of being anti-french - one of the reasons being that the french government sometimes dares to criticize US policies ; the other one being that he met a few Parisians he didn't like, and pointing out is was a cultural thing.
Now, who are the ones criticising here individual aspects, and are being treated as anti-X of which they defend themselves, and who are the ones openly saying they are anti-Y and proud of it ?

That doesn't turn him directly in a cross-burning KKK member yet, true... I hope

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

isn't this getting a little ridiculous? i mean, the guy has expressed an opinion and backed it up. he has made a summary judgement, in his own mind, so what?

these days, being called a 'racist' is probably the worst thing you could call someone. To do so simply because he holds a generalized opinion is simply ludicrous. Is he not free to express his views without being slandered?

It reminds me of how people in the USA, who criticize the USA's unwavering military support for Israel, are quickly decried as racist or anti-Semite. This is a load of crap, and is oppressive of the principles of self-expression that the USA was founded upon.

so let's drop this silliness, shall we?

So [ahem] let me get this straight. Someone should not be described as a racist for expressing any generalised opinion. That would mean racism of any form could not be described as racism, since racism IS a generalised opinion. Weird logic.

In answer to your points in order:
1. He didn't make it in his own mind; he made it on a public forum.
2. The worst thing you can do to someone is a lot worse than calling them a racist. I just thought of eleven things that I cannot bring myself to type.
3. You cannot slander a slanderer? Russ called me an anti-American despite the fact I made no anti-American statements, and did not despite request back it up. That's slander. I called Russ a racist because he said he was 'anti-French' and 'disliked the French'. I did not realize I was slandering him at the time, since his racist comments led me to believe this was not going to be contentious, and I still don't see how it is, to be honest. Like I said, if I claimed to be anti-American or dislike the Americans, there is not a soul on this forum who would defend me against accusations of racism. And quite rightly too.

 

[Art]

isn't this getting a little ridiculous? i mean, the guy has expressed an opinion and backed it up. he has made a summary judgement, in his own mind, so what?

these days, being called a 'racist' is probably the worst thing you could call someone. To do so simply because he holds a generalized opinion is simply ludicrous. Is he not free to express his views without being slandered?

It reminds me of how people in the USA, who criticize the USA's unwavering military support for Israel, are quickly decried as racist or anti-Semite. This is a load of crap, and is oppressive of the principles of self-expression that the USA was founded upon.

so let's drop this silliness, shall we?

Let me try to understand what you are saying here; if I said for example, I am anti-black and I dislike all black people. you would not consider me a racist or a bigot but just somebody expressing a generalised opinion? And you would consider it slanderous if anybody else was to call me a racist?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


We are not talking about superiority here, or discrimination. russ is not trying to prevent French people from getting jobs or something. He is merely expressing his opinion, and while you may fit this into "prejudice" it probably isn't because he has explained his views as having been based upon a judgement, not a pre-judgement.

For example: I am American. Someone here may say "I hate all Americans", they may hate the culture, language, etc. You know what? It wouldn't bother me, because they are entitled to both their opinion and the right to express it. I certainly would not call such a person a racist.

Is celebrating St. Patrick's day, a celebration of all things Irish (with a twinge of superiority for just one day) "racist"? According to webster above, it is. And yet, the complete converse of this, maybe someone who dislikes all things Irish, is "racist"? This, logically, makes no sense.

Maybe it's just that we Americans value freedom of expression over all else, but his own summary judgement, no matter how offensive it may seem to you, is perfectly valid. Claims of "racism" are a real cheap-shot here, and only serve to obfuscate any logic from these discussions.

 

[Art]

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


We are not talking about superiority here, or discrimination. russ is not trying to prevent French people from getting jobs or something. He is merely expressing his opinion, and while you may fit this into "prejudice" it probably isn't because he has explained his views as having been based upon a judgement, not a pre-judgement.

For example: I am American. Someone here may say "I hate all Americans", they may hate the culture, language, etc. You know what? It wouldn't bother me, because they are entitled to both their opinion and the right to express it. I certainly would not call such a person a racist.

Is celebrating St. Patrick's day, a celebration of all things Irish (with a twinge of superiority for just one day) "racist"? According to webster above, it is. And yet, the complete converse of this, maybe someone who dislikes all things Irish, is "racist"? This, logically, makes no sense.

Maybe it's just that we Americans value freedom of expression over all else, but his own summary judgement, no matter how offensive it may seem to you, is perfectly valid. Claims of "racism" are a real cheap-shot here, and only serve to obfuscate any logic from these discussions.

I note you have quietly dropped the word 'bigoted' from the discussion which was the word I used to describe Russ' quoted opinion. What happened did you also look up this word in your dictionary and not like what you saw?
Here, I'll help you. This is the def'n from the Oxford dictionary: Bigoted adj, unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant. Prejudice n, a preconceived opinion. Would you agree Russ' comments re the French were unreasonably predjudiced and intolerant?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

2 : racial prejudice

Thanks. So someone who practises racial prejudice is a racist. The question is then whether or not Russ has done so. First of all, has he prejudged? Well, his statements were: "I am anti-French" and "I dislike the French". This is a generalisation to all French people - no other criteria restrict the scope of his statements. As Russ has not, by his admission that the opinion is based on his experience in Paris, met every French person, and yet maintains dislike of them nonetheless, it is prejudice. What are the criteria which have to be met in order to be prejudged? You have to be French. Any others? No. So race is the only criterion to be met in order to be prejudged by Russ' statement. Therefore it is RACIAL PREJUDICE and, according to the definition you helpfully provided, this is termed 'racism'. The argument that it is merely his opinion is a no-brainer - it is a judgement, and by nature is subjective.

We are not talking about superiority here, or discrimination.

No. Nor are these the only criteria listed in the definition you gave. So?

He is merely expressing his opinion, and while you may fit this into "prejudice" it probably isn't because he has explained his views as having been based upon a judgement, not a pre-judgement.

Like I said, Russ has met few French people, unless they were all in Paris the same day he was, so it is, I'm afraid, a pre-judgement.

Is celebrating St. Patrick's day, a celebration of all things Irish (with a twinge of superiority for just one day) "racist"?

How is celebrating St. Patrick's Day a prejudgement? Is it usual to pass judgement on people you haven't met yet? Pride in your own nation is not a generalisation of others. Do you dislike another nation on St Patrick's Day? I would have thought the only people who did were people who disliked them on the other 364 days of the year.

Maybe it's just that we Americans value freedom of expression over all else, but his own summary judgement, no matter how offensive it may seem to you, is perfectly valid. Claims of "racism" are a real cheap-shot here, and only serve to obfuscate any logic from these discussions.

There's a contradiction here. You're defending one man's racial prejudice on grounds of freedom of expression, but attacking another man's disgust at it. Are my opinions not covered by the same freedoms? And if so, isn't your judgement of my opinions also invalid? Or is it one rule for you and another for us? I think I brought up dual standards earlier. Applies now. Furthermore, are you suggesting that being American is what is required to value freedom of expression? What about non-Americans? Are you suggesting they don't value freedom of expression? Or value it less? If not, why did you say it? What judgement are you making here on non-Americans?
Also, freedom of expression applies to censorship. No-one is censoring Russ. Look at the argument in context. The person most likely to be censored here is me, when admin take my comment as insult (though it was not intended that way - Russ claimed to be proud to be anti-French at first, so what his problem is I don't know) and ban me! Yes, you certainly hope so. No need to go there.
As for logic... I see no logic in statements like "I'm anti-French" or "I dislike the French", nor any in calling me anti-American, nor in your posting and then contradicting of a definition of racism, nor in using freedom of speech as a means to defend one man's views but not another, nor... well, I rest my case. I'm trying to be logical. I feel I have been. Others seem to agree, others disagree. What more do you want from logical debate?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Thanks. So someone who practises racial prejudice is a racist. The question is then whether or not Russ has done so. First of all, has he prejudged? Well, his statements were: "I am anti-French" and "I dislike the French". This is a generalisation to all French people - no other criteria restrict the scope of his statements. As Russ has not, by his admission that the opinion is based on his experience in Paris, met every French person, and yet maintains dislike of them nonetheless, it is prejudice. What are the criteria which have to be met in order to be prejudged? You have to be French. Any others? No. So race is the only criterion to be met in order to be prejudged by Russ' statement. Therefore it is RACIAL PREJUDICE and, according to the definition you helpfully provided, this is termed 'racism'. The argument that it is merely his opinion is a no-brainer - it is a judgement, and by nature is subjective.

Need this be ALL French people? What if he said that of the French that he has met, he disliked around 90% of them, therefore he generalizes (in this case, rightfully so) that he dislikes the French? The english language is not very precise sometimes, but I highly doubt that he means EVERY SINGLE FRENCH person.

Like I said, Russ has met few French people, unless they were all in Paris the same day he was, so it is, I'm afraid, a pre-judgement.

Again, this would not (in my opinion) be a pre-judgement. Let's say, of all the aligators that I have met in Florida, all of them were very mean. I will then generalize and conclude that alligators are mean, and I will stay away from them. I really do not care if there is a particularly domesticated and nice alligator.

Let's make some hypothetical generalizations:

1) Germans are great engineers
2) Italians make great artwork
3) The Portugese make great seafaring vessels
4) Mexicans make wonderful, spicy food

Is anyone offended yet? I guess I can't make any of these statements because they would presumably include ALL of these people in one group? So now you will claim that Italians can't make good engineers, or that Germans can't make good artwork? No, of course not!

Not only is generalization not necessarily bad, but most people of a unique racial background embrace it as a sense of pride!

Have you ever studied mathematical logic? If so, this is pertinent because a) the process of implication is often misunderstood b) the converse of statements in the english language are often times assumed to be the same as the original statement. I believe this to be the case here.

For example, try expressing the statement "Joe dislikes taxes" in mathematical logic. It's not really clear what this means - does the statement mean joe dislikes all taxes? or only some of them? does there exist a tax that joe does not dislike?

swimming pools have water, so does everything with water have to be a swimming pool? by the same reasoning can I say "russ dislikes the french" and yet there be a french person that russ does not dislike? YES.

How is celebrating St. Patrick's Day a prejudgement?

I was referring to superiority here, not prejudgement. And btw, I happen to love St. Paddy's day

There's a contradiction here. You're defending one man's racial prejudice on grounds of freedom of expression, but attacking another man's disgust at it. Are my opinions not covered by the same freedoms?

Indeed, your expression is protected by the same mechanism as Russ. I am not insinuating that you should be thrown in jail or silenced or something, merely that your accusations of racism, in my opinion, are unmerited in this case.

This business of "racism" has gotten silly - now even Bill Cosby is a racist! Am I the only one finding this funny?

 

[Joel]

I appologize in advance, I will get out order here:

Get your asses back on topic! NOW! If anyone bothered to read the OP, you'd notice it was about anti-americanism, not anti-semitism, anti-french, or anti-russ oppinions. ARRRR!

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

One final comment:

Having observed various racial integrations here in the USA, there are some racial and ethnic groups that "get it" and some that don't.

We can live in an imaginary, ideal world where racial judgement doesn't occur, but this simply is not a feasible reality.

For example, Cuban-Americans were very smart in handling this. Not wanting to be lumped into the generalization of Hispanics in the general public's eyes, they actively pushed for their own education and professionalism - despite facing great poverty and persecution. As a result, Cuban-Americans are very successful (whoah - a generalization, better throw me in jail), while some other racial groups go on crying about how unfairly they are treated.

In short, racial groups getting a "bad reputation" is not necessarily a bad thing since this can promote improvement. If you silence these criticisms it only makes things worse (by removing a natural source of pressure) and creates a victim-mentality among the races, and ultimately class warfare. It is unfair to expect people not to generalize and pretend that there are not certain patterns when it comes to racial problems in a society.

Bill Cosby has tried to bring criticisms of African-Americans to light again, in order that the standard of living for African-Americans can improve. And what does he get for his troubles? To be called a "racist".

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I appologize in advance, I will get out order here:

Get your asses back on topic! NOW! If anyone bothered to read the OP, you'd notice it was about anti-americanism, not anti-semitism, anti-french, or anti-russ oppinions. ARRRR!

Do you not find the change of topic interesting? This thread had pretty much died (while on-topic) already, anyway.

I, for one, have found it a very interesting and enjoyable dialogue. Hopefully no one has gotten offended in the process, although I guess it is inevitable in debate.

 

[vanesch]

Get your asses back on topic! NOW! If anyone bothered to read the OP, you'd notice it was about anti-americanism, not anti-semitism, anti-french, or anti-russ oppinions. ARRRR!

The points here are right on topic, I'd say. Even if you think that the original post was about anti-americanism, it was a finger-pointing exercise to European intellectuals (and of course french more in particular) who were *supposed to be* anti-american, and a lot of other bad properties. So this was actually an anti-european/french-intellectual article. So it goes to the heart of the question to consider what exactly it means, to be anti-X, and Russ very helpfully provided a personalized example General conclusion seems to be that a generalized anti-X sentiment is bigotry and racism, so finally it turns out that the original article treats European intellectuals as racist bigots without a clue.

We could now excell in some pot-kettle game, and turn things around. I have the impression that the dispute over the Iraq war created far more generalized anti-french and anti-european sentiment in the US than the other way around!

 

[Joel]

Vanesh, I still disagree with this being on topic simply because you can always turn the cettle around.

The article was indeed very provocative and the prejudice towards European intelectuals was rightfully cticised and hopefully shown as slander to everyone's satisfaction. This was in my oppinion very much on topic since to use anti-americanism in this manner would degenerate it to cheap political mud slinging. However, that would IMHO have been enough, no need to go into a deep analysis of all the prejudice america(ns) may hold in a thread about prejudice towards america(ns). That belongs in another thread.

All this simply because I think it is very important to explore what oppinions are actually based on myths without ending up in a 'oh but you also do it' discourse.

 

[vanesch]

no need to go into a deep analysis of all the prejudice america(ns) may hold in a thread about prejudice towards america(ns).

Again, I don't think that this was - despite its name - a thread on prejudice TOWARDS americans. It was a thread based on PERCEIVED prejudice towards americans, by americans. And now we're back into the analysis of the prejudices Americans (not all of them, but those that perceive this anti-american prejudice) hold.

My thesis was: this perceived anti-american feeling from the part of European intellectuals is in fact nothing else but specific criticisms formulated by them. However, there's a fraction of Americans who (I repeat myself) are so much convinced of their own infallible god status as a nation that they perceive any criticism of it as blasphemy (= anti-americanism).
Now, you can say that this is just my opinion, but I have been reading quite some material from the intellectual french left (probably the most targetted group), and they WARN all the time NOT to fall into the easy trap of anti-americanism.

I think that if you want to look for true anti-americanism, you'll have to look ELSEWHERE than with a majority of european intellectuals. I think you'll find it.