Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Protected

VV and GBWR seemed to be in an edit war. Apologies if I misread the situation, though it doesnt appear that I did. I'm unprotecting it now anyway. -Stevertigo 06:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You were correct about the edit war. What made it dubious was that you were the only one defending the template that was included and that three others wanted to be deleted. Get-back-world-respect 09:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dont disagree that a majority favors deletion, but you are mistaken if you think that three people makes a consensus, and that that can be deemed final after only one day. That said, I am willing to entertain the category idea, in place of the template. -Stevertigo

While I never said that there were consensus of deletion, one person clearly makes no consensus, especially not when there are three people opposing. Get-back-world-respect 14:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is unclear. Are you misreading my use of "consensus" to mean inclusion, rather than deletion? You seem to be either mistaken in your understanding of "consensus" in this case, or you are making a snide comment, which would be a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, wouldnt it? -Stevertigo

You are really tyring me. Just read what I said. I never said that there were consensus for deletion as one might have thought from your comment. I point out that you were the only one in favour of keeping the template as it was. And while three others opposed the template you blocked the page in a version that included the template. I am not angry with you. I even was the one who asked for the protection because of VV. I just think that in the future you should leave such jobs to others in cases where you are involved yourself in a disagreement. And I suggest that we both just leave it to others now to decide what should be done, seems like our dialogues are not very fruitful. Get-back-world-respect 21:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another message from the Delete This Article Movement

"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds?"

-David Cross

That quote reminded me of the infantile intellectual level of this article, or rather its title. There is no such thing as ideological "anti-Americanism", even extremists like bin Laden don't simply "hate America" but are opposed to specific US policies. The concept of "anti-Americanism" is nothing but totalitarian, nationalist paranoia, really not worthy of an encyclopedia. pir 20:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even if it is not a real phenomenon, it is article-worthy by being a frequently alleged phenomenon. Furthermore, this argument is silly. How about, Nazis oppose Jews because they control the banks and the media, foment communism, and manipulate world wars. They don't simply "hate Jews" but are opposed to specific Jewish behavior. The concept of "anti-Semitism" is nothing but Jewish paranoia. (I don't like these analogies, but it's too apt not to use.) There are people that can be "anti-" a nation because of its policies - or its culture or whatever. And, finally, would you favor deleting Anti-French sentiment in the United States, or is that a "legitimate" topic? V V[[]] 00:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your comparison of "anti-Americanism" to the Nazis' genocidal anti-Semitism is extraordinarily distasteful. Do you think that anti-Semitic allegations are substantiated like the "root causes for anti-American sentiments"?? Do you think that "anti-Americans" are about to build concentration camps and murder Americans at an industrial scale? The fact is that the US are a superpower and do dominate the world militarily and economically, and do interfere with countries and international institutions - but there was no Jewish world conspiracy, as I hope you will agree.

The fundamental problem of this article is that it mixes up two different phenomena: (1) the increasing opposition in the world to US domination ; (2) "anti-Americanism" as an alleged ideology or form of racism, which is a propaganda term of the American ruling class, that seeks to make this legitimate opposition to US domination look irrational. The only way to improve this article is to break it into two articles that deal with these seperately.

As for the anti-French article : I don't think it's an important enough topic. Where I come from we dislike the French too, to some extent, in an irrational way, just like we dislike the Germans, the Belgians, the British, the Americans, etc - but I'm not going to write an article on each. Come to think of it, all nations dislike other nations irrationally, at least to some extent, so we could write 188^2=35'344 new articles about how we all hate each other - what a happy encyclopedia Wikipedia will be! This anti-American, anti-French sentiment business is just grotesque. pir 01:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do not waste my time with cheap demagoguery such as calling the "comparison" "distasteful". If you do not understand analogy, that is not my fault - but your following remarks indicate you do. I do not believe the US dominates the world; that is your own personal view, and as long as I am around it will not be the official view of Wikipedia. Do you have any proof that this term originated as a "propaganda" term from the "American ruling class" (whoever the hell that is)? I suspect you do not have any evidence at all for this assertion. Indeed, you concede the existence of "irrational" dislike, and this article appropriately covers dislike both rational and not. And, yes, an Anti-Greek sentiment in Macedonia might be a fine article, if it could be seeded with the proper data, as would no doubt hundreds more yet to be written. Anyone who wrote this set of 35,344 articles would be performing quite a service to Wikipedia, although no doubt some merging would probably prove appropriate. In fact, this very article serves a merger of 188, so I don't see cause for complaint. If the orgy of hate is too much to stomach, Pro-American sentiment and the like would be an admirable project. V V[[]] 02:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If ever there was cheap demoagoguery, it's the comparison between "anti-Americanism" and Nazi anti-Semitism. Those two have nothing in common. The US are at least partly responsible for the violent deaths of over 10'000 civilians in the Iraq war, tens of thousands in Latin America in the 70s and 80s by US-trained and funded death squads, three millions in Vietnam, etc. etc. The Jews in Hitler Germany were not responsible for any such atrocities. Your analogy is distasteful because it portrays the US as a victim and thereby makes a mockery of those killed by the US as well as the Jews killed by the Nazis.

That the US are the sole global superpower and dominate the world is uncontroversal. The US spends more on "defence" than the next dozen countries together, the US have military bases in most countries in the world, the US dollar is the world currency, most multinational corporations are based in the US, the US government is able to prevent, ignore, or sabotage international law and treaties (Geneva convention, International Criminal Court, Kyoto protocol, biological weapons treaty, UN security council decisions etc), on the international stage the US act "multilaterally if we can, unilaterally if we must" as Madeleine Albright put it. No other country has such power, or comes anywhere close. Do you deny these facts? Your assertion is simply ludicrous.

The current hysteria about "anti-Americanism" was fuelled by Bush when he asserted idiocies like "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" and " Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?" They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." As the US became more isolated, the "anti-America" hysteria increased. If you do a google search about anti-Americanism, you come up with mainly two things: news reports (usually in the headline) in which a country or group opposed a particular US government initiative ; and a lot of right-wing garbage, sometimes low-brow jingoism ([1], [2]) sometimes less low-brow ([3]). I challenge you to find some significant examples where alleged "anti-Americans" praise "anti-Americanism" as a racist ideology (in a manner similar to the Nazis praising hatred of the Jews) or extoll the virute of hating American values (freedom, democracy etc.) - if you look at what they say, their demands are justified by their opposition to US policies. Like Robert Fisk and many others have pointed out, the "anti-Americanism" hysteria is nothing but a crude attempt to hide the rational and legitimate reasons behind the growing opposition to US domination and illegitimate interference. pir 16:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I rescind my earlier comment about you understanding analogy - you seem not to after all. Your laundry list of alleged US misdeeds is exhaustingly unoriginal and evidences the usual "the buck stops at America" attitude. Is anyone not America's victim? And can no American ever be a victim? The US is indeed the sole superpower, but this does not equal domination. Should I waste time refuting your claims point by point? (For instance, how many nations do not act unilaterally when they feel their interests are at stake?) No, you would blithely ignore me. Again, you make unfounded etymological assertions - can you prove this "hysteria" is due to Bush? Can you connect Bush's bold pronouncements to this term? I doubt it. Well, I'm probably writing "right-wing garbage" right now according to you, so I won't bother anymore. Suffice it to say there are multiple points of view, and we can and do note both. Your view, I might add, strikes me as fringe. V V[[]] 06:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rather than misrepresent and arrogantly dismiss my views and anticipate my reaction to any reasoning from your side, I would very much welcome if you responded to the points I am making: (1) your analogy between "anti-Americanism" and Nazi anti-Semitism does not hold because the causes of Nazi anti-Semitism were irrational and anti-Semitic allegations unsubstantiated, whereas the opposition to US govenment policies that is often slandered as "anti-Americanism" is a rational phenomenon and the allegations can be substantiated (no matter what your personal opinion on these is). It is not a coincidence that this article consists to 3/4 of "root causes of anti-american sentiment", but the article on anti-Semitism does not have a long list of how the root causes of anti-Semitism were Jewish control of the banks and the media, fomenting of communism, manipulation of world wars and a Jewish world conspiracy. (2) Please give some specific and significant examples of where alleged "anti-Americans" go about their "anti-Americanism" in a manner analogous to anti-Semites' use of anti-Semitism. You will find that there are no significant instances, and that therefore "anti-Americanism" as a form of a racist ideology does not must" as Madeleine Albright put it. No other country has such power, or comes anywhere close. Do you deny these facts? Your assertion is simply ludicrous.

The current hysteria about "anti-Americanism" was fuelled by Bush when he asserted idiocies like "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" and " Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?" They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." As the US became more isolated, the "anti-America" hysteria increased. If you do a google search about anti-Americanism, you come up with mainly two things: news reports (usually in the headline) in which a country or group opposed a particular US government initiative ; and a lot of right-wing garbage, sometimes low-brow jingoism ([4], [5]) sometimes less low-brow ([6]). I challenge you to find some significant examples where alleged "anti-Americans" praise "anti-Americanism" as a racist ideology (in a manner similar to the Nazis praising hatred of the Jews) or extoll the virute of hating American values (freedom, democracy etc.) - if you look at what they say, their demands are justified by their opposition to US policies. Like Robert Fisk and many others have pointed out, the "anti-Americanism" hysteria is nothing but a crude attempt to hide the rational and legitimate reasons behind the growing opposition to US domination and illegitimate interference. pir 16:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I rescind my earlier comment about you understanding analogy - you seem not to after all. Your laundry list of alleged US misdeeds is exhaustingly unoriginal and evidences the usual "the buck stops at America" attitude. Is anyone not America's victim? And can no American ever be a victim? The US is indeed the sole superpower, but this does not equal domination. Should I waste time refuting your claims point by point? (For instance, how many nations do not act unilaterally when they feel their interests are at stake?) No, you would blithely ignore me. Again, you make unfounded etymological assertions - can you prove this "hysteria" is due to Bush? Can you connect Bush's bold pronouncements to this term? I doubt it. Well, I'm probably writing "right-wing garbage" right now according to you, so I won't bother anymore. Suffice it to say there are multiple points of view, and we can and do note both. Your view, I might add, strikes me as fringe. V V[[]] 06:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rather than misrepresent and arrogantly dismiss my views and anticipate my reaction to any reasoning from your side, I would very much welcome if you responded to the points I am making: (1) your analogy between "anti-Americanism" and Nazi anti-Semitism does not hold because the causes of Nazi anti-Semitism were irrational and anti-Semitic allegations unsubstantiated, whereas the opposition to US govenment policies that is often slandered as "anti-Americanism" is a rational phenomenon and the allegations can be substantiated (no matter what your personal opinion on these is). It is not a coincidence that this article consists to 3/4 of "root causes of anti-american sentiment", but the article on anti-Semitism does not have a long list of how the root causes of anti-Semitism were Jewish control of the banks and the media, fomenting of communism, manipulation of world wars and a Jewish world conspiracy. (2) Please give some specific and significant examples of where alleged "anti-Americans" go about their "anti-Americanism" in a manner analogous to anti-Semites' use of anti-Semitism. You will find that there are no significant instances, and that therefore "anti-Americanism" as a form of a racist ideology does not exist.pir 15:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello Pir, please calm down. And do not make the crucial error that makes the distinction between anti-xxxxxx-ism and legitimate criticism. It is not "the Americans" who are responsible for all the things you dislike, it is mainly the current government, which was not even elected by half the US population and a lot of whose actions were not predictable before the 12th of September 2001. Also note that there is no such thing as a "world currency" and that in verifiable statistics like importance as reserve currency or amount of trade in particular currency the US currency is far from being the only one. Even if I agree that the expression "anti-Americanism" is most used in order to defame and downplay legitimate criticism this article is useful in pointing this out rather than allowing users like VV to make it seem as if "anti-Americanism" was comparable to anti-Semitism. Get-back-world-respect 23:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will not be calm when faced with propaganda and falsehoods from apologists for those who abuse power in the most inhumane way. Of course I do not in any way blame "the Americans" for "all the things I dislike", there are many things I like about the US (what a platitude to say this). I am opposed to any country trying to control other countries either in the direct military way or exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries through indirect methods, i.e. I am a principled opponent of imperialism. Hence I criticise US imperialism but you will find me criticising European or Soviet imperialism just as vigorously, and I don't even think that US imperialism is any more bloody than its European ancestor. There is therfore nothing "anti-American" about my views. For a very readable review of the history of US imperialism in the current context, and to counter the idea that the Bush government is to blame for all, as well as VV's silly allegation that my views are somehow on the fringe, check this excellent article by an American scholar at the US Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Although there is certainly no world currency, the US dollar is widely used in international trade for example to buy oil, which has as a consequence that the US dollar is the only currency whose stability is to a large extent maintained by foreign countries, which in turn biases the world economy to work in favour of the US.

Lastly, you convinced me that this article is worth keeping, even though it accepts the propaganda term "anti-Americanism". However it needs to be improved, and the first improvement will be to move the paragraphe "Allegations of Anti-Americanism in propaganda" up, because hardly anybody will ever read through to this most important paragraphe the end of the article pir 16:13, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is silly. What about your personal opinion entitles it to be front, bold, and center? V V[[]] 04:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep your unfounded allegations straight. It is you who now are trying to force anti-Semitism into this. Previously, I merely wrote that it was a point of view that these sentiments are "related" to other prejudices. (Impute this point of view to me if you wish; that merely bores me, as it's utterly beside the point.) Note the word related; that does not mean "identical", nor even "comparable" (in the colloquial sense). Or, maybe you're referring to my comments to pir instead, in which case you too may miss analogy. V V[[]] 07:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

analogy: partial similarity between two things that are compared (from the Oxford dictionary). VV compared anti-Americanism and Nazi anti-Semitism (which is fair enough because there are partial very superficial similarities), and then inferred from this analogy that There are people that can be "anti-" a nation because of its policies - or its culture or whatever. Logically this means that VV believes that anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany was caused by specific Jewish policies and/or Jewish culture (in which case he would be an anti-Semite, something I don't believe to be the case) or that the analogy can not be used to make the point he's trying to make.pir 15:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are mixing up two separate counterarguments; people can be "anti-" for many reasons. But perhaps I should clarify that people can be "anti-" a nation because of its perceived policies. Thus, some may be anti-American because they incorrectly believe the US to be greedy, rapacious, imperialistic, and Arab-hating. Similarly, some may be anti-Semitic because they believe Jews are eating their children. V V[[]] 04:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VV, you seem to make the logical mistake that is central to the concept of anti-Americanism: identifying a nation with its government. A nation does not have policies, it's the government that has policies. Those slandered as "anti-American" do not generally make this mistake, while the slanderers do. Do you agree that this is intellectually wrong? As an aside: Do you deny that the US government launched a military invasion of Iraq on false allegations, or that the US military abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Just trying to understand how you look at the world.pir 14:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the line between disliking a country's policies and disliking its people is much finer than you think. Your claim that Those slandered as "anti-American" do not generally make this mistake, while the slanderers do does not comport with my experience; much as you seem interested in positing a hierarchy of crude, addle-brained "slanderers" and level-headed, sophisticated policy critics, I fear that dichotomy does not reflect reality. I am uninterested in the irrelevant Abu Ghraib scandal; guards abusing prisoners is as old as prostitution, there was a fuss here because it happened to cross nationality lines (and of course because re Americans it seemed to validate what many want to believe). V V[[]]

You changed "The term is normally used to pejoratively implicate an ideology, and alludes to racism (cf. anti-semitism)" into "Others, however, believe it is a genuine force rooted in prejudice and resentment and related to racism and anti-Semitism". This makes me think that you wanted to make it seem as if "anti-Americanism" was comparable to anti-Semitism, even if you say you did not . Get-back-world-respect 12:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I said "Others believe" this. What is wrong with that? V V[[]] 04:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You deleted a version supported by many into an unsourced one saying the opposite, using a lot of the old words. Camouflage with "others believe" does not help. Get-back-world-respect 11:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Camouflage? But "others denounce" (as "propaganda") is not? V V[[]] 20:25, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I never tried to delete one version in favour of the other. I am perfectly ok if we cover, as in the version I repeatedly have to defend against your vandalism, "Some see it as based on prejudice... Others denounce it as a propaganda term... What you did was twisting the propaganda term explanation in its opposite and surrounding the view you cannot follow with opposing views, which is obviously not neutral. Get-back-world-respect 20:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh? The way I have written it is brief and straightforward. Some see this, others this. Clear and to the point. You want to pad the intro with an elaboration of your personal opinion, which besides being ill-founded and wrong is just one POV among many. And yet at the same time you accuse me of "camouflaging" and "twisting" when I put in a few words about how some see anti-Americanism as being analogous to racism and anti-Semitism. V V[[]] 21:29, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I already told you several times, the version I suggest is supported by many. It is supported by the Chomsky quote, the user who added that, and a lot of others, some of whom even complained about the very existence of this article given the propagandistic use of the term. My version has been there undisputed for a while before you came here. You are the only one who changes it all the time. Your original change was clearly tendentious, and you tried to twist this article in other cases as well, both is explained and documented above. Declaring the opinion of others as "ill-founded and wrong" is just stupid, trying to suppress it and exchanging it by your own is against wiki policy. Get-back-world-respect 00:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am sick of your charges that I'm twisting anything. In fact, all of your charges are absurd. I am entitled to my opinion about your opinion. You have yet to explain where I'm pushing my own opinion, but since I'm not I don't ever expect you to. And I've been working on this article for almost a year. V V[[]] 01:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I wrote a dozen times now, I documented my charges above. If your only way of argueing is to deny everything without being specific we make no progress. Just let others decide. Get-back-world-respect 02:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree with VV: equalling or even 'relating' anti-americanism with anti-semitism or racism is incorrect, and, in fact, nonsensical. I'm a european, and as many fellow-europeans, I am pretty strong anti-american. What this means to me (and, IMHO to most of us), is not that we hate every single US-citizen in the world (let alone that we would persecute or exterminate americans; making such an analogy is really absurd), but that we strongly dislike the american government, and, to some extent, the broader mentality of the americans that considers the US to be the 'greatest country of the world' and thinks they can and should police the world, and mold other countries into their image.

Now, you can refute and claim this vision is not true, and that the US is a morally superior country with only altruistic aims...but fact remains that is the view of most europeans who fall in the category of 'anti-americanism'. --BN

Dear European BN, are you also "anti-Dutch" when you oppose the government of the Netherlands? Was Zapatero "anti-Spanish" as long as he was in the opposition, and now Aznar is "anti-Spanish"? Get-back-world-respect 12:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is primarely for others to decide when labelling me (or anyone else). Just as M.Moore doesn't think of himself as anti-american, while some other americans think he is, I don't think I'm anti-dutch (or anti-spanish), while others may conclude I am. Point being that in neither case, I'm racist or persecuting dutch nor spanish people. --BN

BN, why do you not register and sign with ~~~~?

You labelled yourself "anti-American", and I think you are not, as much as you are neither anti-Dutch nor anti-Spanish nor racist nor persecuting people. Get-back-world-respect 23:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An intersting page for those interested in such matters

There's a web site called "The acts of the Democracies", at: http://www.krysstal.com/democracy.html

Its not 100% neutral (Example: it notes that Israel invaded certain Arab states in 1967 without noting that this was in response to an surprise attack upon the Israeli state's most holy day).

However it has some interesting insights, and in particular under "Essays" the essay entitled "Why the USA" is worthwhile reading for those watching this topic.

"Boycott USA Goods", yes, well, not quite neutral, agreed. Get-back-world-respect 22:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In an article "The New Anti-Semitism? by Rob Foot" in the Australian review Quadrant. http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=749

Foot suggests that Anti-American sentiment is the pentulant reaction of the left to the failure of the socailist/communist world to function compared to capitalism. He makes some very strong points to support that claim. zaphod68.78.75.100 02:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Compromise for GBWR and VV

The page is protected because VV and GBWR cannot agree on the prose of the following:

VV's version: "However, critics of this view respond that certain people do express contempt for America or for the American people, and thus see calling them 'anti-American' as justified."

GBWR's version: "Others believe that certain people express contempt for America or for the American people, and thus see calling them "anti-American" as justified."

Perhaps they will both be able to agree on the following in order to get this page unprotected: "Others believe that certain people do express contempt for America or for the American people, and thus argue that calling them "anti-American" is justified." I will not edit this page, so VV and GBWR can decide whether to adopt or ignore this proposal. 172 23:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal, which I can accept, but the conflict is more far-reaching as you can see above. Get-back-world-respect 01:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This proposal appears to concede virtually all ground to GBWR. The point is that this paragraph introduces a contrast. This is a trivial point, of course, which loses sight of the deeper issue of his constant attacks on my edits. V V[[]] 06:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Good luck resolving this dispute. 172 16:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The contrast is apparent to everyone who can read. Thank you for your willingness to find a consensus on points that are indeed trivial. The constant "attacks on edits" were mutual. Get-back-world-respect 07:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah your work shines through here [7]. Oh no wait, all of those changes were made by me, you were reverting everything else, and you made no contribution at all. V V[[]]

I do not understand what you mean here. Get-back-world-respect 21:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I feel I must confess my lack of comprehension, and quite frankly, disappointment, at this page. I use wikipedia every day for research and have found it very useful, perhaps the most useful online encyclopedia; however, I find it humorous (yes, you can tell by my spelling of "humorous" that I am American) that a site charged with the task of informing the world public as to the definition of "anti-American" sentiment actually expresses unabashed anti-American sentiment itself. I am Mexican-American, eighteen years old, Catholic, think of myself as a patriot, and I didn't know whether to be angry or amused with this article. I find it interesting that you should mention the Roman Catholic Church's discontentment with the United States, when the European governments slapped the Roman Catholic and every other Christian Church, in the face by failing to even mention Christianity in the framing of the European constitution. This, coupled with the fact that Church attendance in the United States is astronomically higher in the United States than in Europe (notwithstanding Mosque attendance in Europe), leads me to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is more displeased with Europe than America. I think that you should perhaps research the Catholic Church's feelings before you list them.

I also find it laughable that my country's military be criticized by non-Americans. Our capabilities, which we now use to "blackmail the world," were the subjects of only praise when we saved the Allies in the First World War, then saved Europe again in the Second World War, and then used our "blackmailing nuclear arsenal" to once again shield Europe from the Soviet Union. And our armed forces were once again lauded for saving millions of Muslim (of whom I also find it interesting that we were not characterized as being the enemy) from mass graves and rape when the great European Union and her sons were unable to, as this site itself acknowledges in its article titled "Kosovo War."

You Europeans think we believe our country is better than all of yours. This may be true of some Americans, whom I think of as ignorant fools, but this is simply not the case for the majority of Americans. If it were so, then why do so many of us visit your respective countries? The sentiment of one country's being better than someone else's is stronger in Europe, as I myself experienced when I traveled there during the begining of the Iraq war.

We would like to once again think of you, all Europeans, as brothers, as we did when we fought our common enemy, the Soviets. Yet now, once you no longer need us, you seek to undermine us. You form the European Union out of the express purpose of not being beneath/dependent on America anymore, which, is your good right, but to do so for such reasons is... disturbing. And now, you want to end the trade embargo with Communist China, who every day threatens the democratic Taiwan, because you correctly see the huge economic potential China has become/is/will continue to be. So, if you criticize us for our installation of Banana Republics in Central America, what are you doing to Taiwan?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us!

Wikipedia is not perfect, and so far this is the best relation of anti-American sentiments we have been able to present for any longer period of time. Other attempts have been made — many, actually — but they have as a rule been modified and changed back and forth with, often with high frequency, until this version stabilized.

It's sometimes a narrow line between reporting thoughts and appear as supporting the reported thoughts. This has always been a problem for journalism and free thoughts in academic settings. Your concerns do to a large extent raise the question whether Wikipedia maybe better didn't mention certain topics at all, but our answer, that we are very unlikely to retreat from, can be read at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Kind regards!

/Tuomas 06:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are doing nothing to solve the actual problem, but merely hiding behind pages of rules. The fact that this article is subjective is obvious. Something should be done to protect the journalistic integrity/objectivity of this site.

Offensive links

I do not think that wikipedia should link to grossly offensive pages, not even for reasons of "documenting". Someone added a link "Fuckfrance.com" to Anti-French sentiment in the United States. Such a title is totally unacceptable for a website, and we should not advertise such things under any condition. What would you say if we listed crap like FuckUSA.org or FuckIsrael.com? At both George W. Bush and John Kerry even all "critical" links were deleted. I do not see why there should not be a limit of indecency for link lists of other controversial articles as well. What do others think? I ask the same question at Talk:anti-Semitism - and a similar one at pedophilia-related "Childlove". Get-back-world-respect 20:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The accessibility of information, openness and verifiability of claims are such a high good that it should take precedence over the feelings of a small number of people who might feel offended. Anticipating the feelings of being offended is such a subjective criterion that it is impossible to apply consistently. I bet half the articles in Wikipedia will cause offense to someone or other - that doesn't mean we should remove them. IMO, if a link adds something valuable to an article it should be there. In general people have been going quite far when it comes to adding links, e.g. the link to the decapitation video in the Nick Berg article, which must be about as offensive as it can get.

Interestingly, and as opposed to FuckFrance.org or http://www.francestinks.com/, FuckUSA.org or FuckIsrael.com don't exist. Just like anti-Americanism is largely an invention of right-wing demagogues who accuse others of the jingoism that characterises them. (FuckUSA.com does exist, but it's a porn site, and I don't recommend you check it out because even by the standard of porn sites it's disgusting. I haven't been able to work out if the name is meant in an anti-American or pro-American -freedom etc.- way.)

You know very well that there are a lot of US-bashing or anti-semite sites around. However, none of the other articles link to them, and for good reasons. I voted and will always vote against spreading terrorists' propaganda like illustrated beheadings. Get-back-world-respect 23:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot recall coming across any "anti-American" sites ever (in the sense of "racist" or chauvinistic or jingoistic like fuckfrance.com), although I have seen many that are opposed to the US meddling other countries esp. the Iraq war, which does not classify as "anti-American". Don't be scared of propaganda, whoever it comes from - education, open debate and information will neutralise it. pir 00:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I must agree with the former poster. You can't be BUT subjective about what is 'offensive' and not. If one deems it is ok to delete or edit a page or link because you find it offensive, then logic dictates another person may do so because of what he thinks is offensive. If you agree to that, imagine if some religious dude form the middle-east or the government of china etc. would start editing the wikipedia, according to his measure of 'offense'. And no, there are no 'universal' rules of feeling offended, and even if there were, I still doubt it's a valid reason to edit or delete anything, because in essence, one is silencing minorities in this way.

Once you go on that slippery slope, you'll end like that US-state-law I read about, which prohibited the use of the word 'owl' in teaching-books, because it offended the (religious beliefs of a group of) native americans (indians). While a wikipedia should try to remain as neutral as possible, this also means it should not fall into the trap of 'political-correctness'. It is as the above poster says: if a link adds something valuable to an article it should be there, and that supercedes it being considered 'offensive' by someone.

The word 'fuck' is a prime example of it, actually. I suspect you are american? I would want to note that to me, as to many of my countrymen, the word 'fuck' is hardly perceived as something offensive. And I'm sure those native americans I talked about find the word 'owl' much more offensive then the word fuck. The criteria therefor can and should not be whether a particular word or link is deemed offensive by a person, but rather the value the article or page it links to is, regardless of the name. Anything else, and you can not, in good faith, forbid someone else to edit or delete a word or link he finds offensive, when you do the same. And I assure you it's amazing what people may take offence to, even without actually abusing it (in their view). :-) --NB

VV/GBWR, could you at least make an attempt to resolve your differences so that we can continue work on this article? pir 22:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agreed to 172's suggestion, VV did not and did not make a better suggestion. Regarding the other disputes, I think the conflict could be resolved if just some others joined the discussion about the intro and the other things that we disagreed about. Get-back-world-respect 23:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A lie. I did make suggestions. You just continued reverting anyway. Since you don't behave properly, there's not much point in me "suggesting" yet further compromise. V V[[]] 03:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VV, your attempts to falsify history are becoming more and more bizarre. Anyone can see that since the page was protected you have not made any attempt to resolve the conflict. 2 of your 3 comments since have been attacks on GBWR. Sometimes your behaviour seems a bit trollish to me. Please try to be more co-operative. pir 10:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my patience with users who revert everything I try to do without rhyme or reason has grown very thin of late. Maybe I need a WikiStress image on my user page. Anyway, I made my points earlier, which are pending. V V[[]] 19:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What you did earlier was why the page was protected and why a compromise was suggested. You refuse to accept it and did not make any better suggestions. Get-back-world-respect 03:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The main problem were the introduction, the mentioning of the view that Al Quaida terrorism

is directed against "the West" rather than solely the U.S., and various wording issues like "However, critics counter", which is not neutral. Cf. this revert. Get-back-world-respect 12:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I think the sites at anti-French sentiment are a good illustration, this article should have examples of anti-American sentiment too. Does anyone know any? Or do they not exist? pir 22:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Check out http://www.mylinea.com/anti-tout/anti-imperialisme/anti-usa/anti-usa_groups/, http://t.webring.com/hub?ring=antiusawebring, http://www.anti-u-s-a.de.vu/, just on the first page of Google. RickK 22:39, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that Rick. They are interesting examples:

One starts with a big disclaimer : "Ich möchte auf dieser Seite nicht alle Amerikaner pauschal verurteilen - denn die Mehrheit hat Georg W. Bush NICHT gewälht - sondern zu einem kritischen Umgang mit der selbsternannten Weltmacht aufrufen" ("I don't want to condemn Americans generally on this site -the majority did NOT vote for George W. Bush- instead I want to call for a critical attitude towards the self-appointed world power [superpower]") [8]
"if you are against usa this is the place to be.if you dispute their wars, their politics etc, this is your webring!!" i.e. they oppose US foreign policy (but have trouble expressing this as English is not their first language); the two sites listed are anarchist anti-capitalist
[9] contains various discussion groups, many of them calling for boycotts as a result of the Iraq war. With one likely exception [10] (but I'm not going to join this group just to find out what their ideology is!), all of them oppose specific policies and/or insist on making a distinction between US government policies and the American people (often in bad English): "Boycott U.S. Goods to Stop the Iraq War ", "...saving the globe through adherence to the Kyoto protocol", "This group is united against American terror, not against the American people.", "Nobody stereo-types all Americans, in a violent dollarcracy people of all races can be victims...", "This is not a understanding of Anti-America that is anti with all of its action. To merely oppose its action that excessive and cruel towards whole world Muslims and non-Muslims. And Justice for all."

Conclusion: these are sites by people who oppose how the US government behaves towards the rest of the world. They are not irrational, hatefilled rabid racists (in the way anti-Semites are), they are rational people who care about the world and try to improve it, wether or not you agree with their politics. They are not "anti-American" and there's nothing here to convince me the existence of "anti-Americanism".pir 00:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well if someone or some nation consistently and continually opposes everything we do as a country, then I think calling them anti-American would be appropriate. This doesn't mean they hate everyone in America, it just means they tend to dislike most (or all) of our elected leaders and, to varying degrees, the majority opinion. I just don't see what is wrong with calling certain people like Michael Moore anti-American (especially after he called us the dumbest people on the planet.) Most people in this country would agree that making stupid shock-value statements that sympathize with tyrants and terrorists over the US government is not patriotic (and I'm sure Moore doesn't care about being patriotic, but I always hear/see whiners on political shows explaining how incredibly patriotic it is to have a different opinion)

In that case (even if one agrees to your statement), you should call M.Moore anti-patriotic, not anti-american. I think this shows the basic error one makes: you are NOT anti-american because you criticize the government. In fact, I think M.Moore would argue that opposing the 'doings' - what he believes are bad policies - of a country (in this case the USA) IS in effect, being more pro-american then just being blindly patriotic.

BTW, what's with the editting in response to the Chomsky quote? Way too generic. How 'bout something like "However, critics counter that certain people are consistently opposed to traditional and historical American values; therefore, calling them anti-American is justified." Too convoluted maybe, but something like that. All it says now is that it's anti-American if someone dislikes America, but that was already argued against in Chomsky's quote. Too simplistic.

Hi non-signer, which nation consistently and continuously opposes everything the US do as a country? The wars in Afghanistan and the liberation of Kuwait had large support. The current US government does not, and this cannot be blamed on others. Do you think the opposition in the Knesset is anti-semite because they oppose the Israeli government? Get-back-world-respect 12:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There should be something about Canada in this article

Reading this article, I found that many of the references to Western Europe or Europe in general suied Canada as well. In fat, I would argue that there is more animosity towards the current American governement in Canada today as opposed to some places in Europe, but Canada is only mentioned once (bout the soft lumber dispute). I think that this article should include some reasons as to why Canadians have some "anti-American" attitudes, reasons that are different than in most other countries. For example, the US has pressured the Canadian government to stop pursuing the legalization of Marijuana, the US constantly critisizes Canada's policies on immigration and tolerence, the US goes over Canada's head in dealing with Canadian issues (ie. the Arar deportation), the US constantly threatens Canada's Northern Sovereignty (ie. the US wants all Canadian internal waters in the North to become International waters thereby allowing US industries to circumvent Canadian environmental laws), the US pursues an assimilation method with regards to immigration that most Canadians find offensive and arrogant (most Canadians identify themselves as English-Canadian, French-Canadian, Germen-Canadian even after five or six generations of being in Canada as opposed to being Canadian; compare that to the use of the term American), and the US treatment of Native Americans (I admit Canada has had its problems with the First Nations, but Canadians are way ahead of the Americans in including aboriginal culture into the national structure). Canada's other main problem with the US is its arrogance, particularily the policy of Manifest Destiny under which all of North America (including Canada) would eventually take its part in the United States, and seeing how Americans see Canada (the term America Jr. comes to mind), Canadians have every right to be angry in my opinion. I think that characterizing this kind of Anti-Americanism with the form espouced by Al-Qaeda is misleading and generalizing suggesting that all people who hold so called "un-American" believes are violently Anti-American. Face it, America has made many enemies (including friendly enemies) and jealousy isn't the reason.

resolving the dispute

OK, as far I understand it the dispute between GBWR and VV boils down to the following (please rephrase if you don't think it's accurate):

VV wants to see what he calls a contrast between the Chomskyite view that the concept of anti-Americanism derives from "totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society" and critics of this view : "However, critics of this view respond that certain people do express contempt for America or for the American people, and thus see calling them "anti-American" as justified."[11]
GBWR objects that "However, critics counter" is not neutral

"critics counter" is indeed not neutral because the word "counter" implies that their argument makes sense. The formulation "However, critics of this view respond" does not assume anything about the validity of their response and is therefore neutral (which is what GBWR wants) ; it also introduces a contrast, which is what VV wants. Why don't we just go for VV's "However, critics of this view respond" formulation?pir

GBWR further thinks that if alleged anti-American terrorism is discussed it should be mentioned that Al Quaida directs its attacks against citizens of many "western" countries rather than solely the U.S.

Here I agree with GBWR pir

The two versions of the introduction: [12]

"The nature and effects of anti-Americanism are hotly debated. Some see it as based on prejudice or jingoism and chauvinism. Others denounce it as a propaganda term because it is normally used to pejoratively implicate an ideology, and alludes to racism (cf. anti-semitism). Critics see this as an attempt to distract from and to downplay legitimate criticism leveled towards the US, particularly in regards to its foreign policy." (GBWR version)

vs.

"The nature and effects of anti-Americanism are hotly debated. Some see it as based on prejudice, jingoism, and chauvinism and believe it at the root of such extremes as terrorism against Americans. Others denounce it as a propaganda term that downplays legitimate criticism leveled towards the US, particularly in regards to its foreign policy." (VV version)

I suggest we only briefly and fairly describe the two points of view, but explain them further elsewhere in the article. We should probably not mention "terrorism" in the introduction as this view is so controversial that critics of this view will always insist on an instant rebuttal - it should be dealt with elsewhere in the article. Could we settle for the following:

The nature and effects of anti-Americanism are hotly debated. Some see it as based on chauvinism or prejudice similar to anti-Semitism. Critics of the concept denounce it as a propaganda term that downplays legitimate criticism leveled towards the US government.

In the article itself we can then elaborate esp. criticisms of the concept of anti-Americanism, the existence of anti-American sentiment etc., how it leads to terrorism etc., and contextualise these views by stating who holds them and how they are used etc.pir 13:15, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just want to chime in to say that this discussion appears to be very healthy, and its good to see VV and GBWR grow more articulate in their wikilove for each other and the quality of the article itself. Does this mean that the page can now be unproteced, that the partisans can remain isolated to the talk page, while and the honorable Pir and perhaps myself can smith the words in such a manner that is both exciting to all parties involved, and yet still somewhat resembling of the facts? It would be an honor to craft the words that finally put this baby to bed. A good intro for your article is everything: just look at our work at race and intelligence. With your purchase from services from the non-partisan wordsmiths comes a nifty free (as in beer) set of ginsu knives. SV

GBWR and VV, could you kids play somewhere else? I mean you had 3 weeks to sort this out! pir 13:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you have anything specific you want to complain about, please do so. In any case, condescending language is by no means helpful. I stated my concerns about VV's edits, and I stand to them. Get-back-world-respect 23:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi GBWR, I admit you have a point if you find it unfair that I made no distinction between your behaviour and VV's re. Anti-American sentiment edit wars/their resolution. On the other hand you didn't even respond to my suggestion that we adopt VV's wording of this particular sentence. Why exactly is "However, critics of this view respond" not neutral? It's not obvious to me. I also think that it's quite strange you don't want to compromise on this, as VV might have agreed on some far more important objections you raised. This dispute is, quite frankly, childish and very irritating for other users who you prevent from working constructively on this article. pir 09:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I already wrote above, I am not unwilling to resolve the conflict but keep discussing here. VV to the contrary refused to discuss but rushes to editing the same parts that led to the last protection right after it was removed.

Thank you for adding a specific point as I asked. "Critics of this view respond" is neutral, "However" redundantly lets it seem as if the previous argument was refuted by what follows. Get-back-world-respect 10:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that you and VV (and I) subscribe to different world views. As a result, what VV regards as a refutation is not a refutation to you (or me). I doubt that it is practical to solve this problem by trying to achieve a consensus world view through endless argueing. Nor can we write a NPOV encyclopaedia with sentences like "However (correct prepositional phrase according to some) respectively Still (correct prepositional phrase according to others) critics of this view respond..." Personally, I trust readers to be able to decide for themselves what is a sensible refutation and what isn't. pir 11:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fact that most readers can judge on their own what a refutation is does not mean that users like VV should be allowed to sneak partisan wordings into articles. The preposition is completely redundant at that position. Get-back-world-respect 11:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you really think it's good to have a stalemate on an article that needs a lot of improvement, as the price for letting a single formulation slip through because you interpret it as POV? What is the way forward?pir 12:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My word, GBWR is simply sounding insane at this point. First, however is a conjunction, not a preposition. But more on point calling this "partisan wordings" makes me seriously doubt your judgement yet further and indeed your understanding of the English language. However introduces a contrast, not a refutation. And you seem intent on spewing all over the Talk pages how I'm engaged in "partisan messages", and this is your evidence. Simply comical. V V 01:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GBWR is no more insane than you VV, your insistence on "introducing a contrast" is just as legitimate as GBWR's refusal. Please stop making personal attacks. (Just to make clear that I am not making personal attack here because I'm not accusing either of you of being insane, I'm just comparing relative levels of sanity). Why don't you resolve your childish conflict, or take a break from this article?pir 09:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did not call him insane, merely that he sounds insane, and the issue is not about whether to introduce a contrast, but whether using the word however is "partisan wordings" and an attempt to spread "partisan messages", which is a preposterous allegation. V V 19:02, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you resolve your childish conflict, or take a break from this article?pir 19:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to use words like childish, but to respond, my attempts at resolution are above, but GBWR seems intent on reverting edits on page after page I edit. I don't intend to take that lying down. V V 20:21, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you are unable/unwilling to resolve your conflict you should have the decency to leave this article alone so that others can work on it. pir 21:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"however" does not introduce, but rather suggests a contrast, where there is not neccessarily a contrast. This is why it is POV; it is a tainted conjunction, and should not be used anywhere in any controversial article. Suggseting that two ideas/facts are related to eachother in a certain way is introducing pov. Ideas should be treated as independant entities. Here's an example:

"The dog went into the house. However, there was no cat in the house." should be instead "The dog went into the house. There was no cat in the house." (in this case, btw, however is a preposition, not a conjunction, as it begins a sentence rather than joining two sentences) The use of the word "However" suggests, in this case, that we should have been expecting there to be a cat in the house, given that the dog went into it. This persuades the POV that the dog was looking for a cat, which does not neccessarily follow from the fact that the dog went into the house. Kevin Baas | talk 22:51, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Missing root cause: The USA are popular

The list of root causes for anti-American sentiments explores all kinds of disagreements between the USA and other countries. However, it ignores two crucial points:

If North Korea lashes out at the world or if Russia commits atrocities against civilians, typical reactions are concerned, not shocked. If the USA wanted the same kind of indifference towards their actions, they would have to convince the world to lower their expectations to similar levels, and that's a tall order. I would agree there's been a lot of public criticism aimed at the USA in large parts of the world (especially in the past few years), but the USA remain popular regardless. People continue to buy US brands, watch US TV shows, listen to US music, and visit the US on vacations. In many countries, the current spike in anti-American sentiments was caused by disappointment with a nation that is still considered an ally and friend.
The USA are incredibly powerful. If they bargain exactly like any other country does, they will win almost every time. And that's a point both camps in the edit war above seem to have missed or at least underestimated: Such a behavior does not necessarily mean that the USA are behaving worse than any other country -- it is the vast impact of any behavior that makes the US unique. Some animosity is certainly to be expected if they fail to show some restraint in using their superior power. --Rl 21:23, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These are relativist arguments - not that they shouldnt be included as "proponents of term claim..." but its unencyclopedic to let thin arguments stand as fact. The "If Russia or North Korea" argument might have worked twenty years ago, but not now, and not in the international context in which this wiki works. For starters, "popularity" is only a subjective classification; its neither a cause nor a reason. But if you want to try and make a *straightforward argument that "the US is popular", then there are *straightforward counterarguments to that; the sideways slippery-slope/false-premise argument doesnt even begin to sound convincing. As far as power, yes, this is true - and to a certain extent the US does, and is expected to by a certain percent of its population, use force and power to get its way. To a certain extent, a certain part of the US citizenry even sanctions the use of US state terrorism to defend its modest claim for control of over 60 percent of the world's wealth and resources, and this "defense" is refered to by a number of thin and clever but time-honored euphemisms: "defending freedom", "fighting terrorism" "fighting evil", etc. etc. etc. The '"disappointment" in America's coming short of perfection' argument is laughable at best. There is a nice little quote at the top of the "Where is Raed?" blog - you should read it. -SV

My comments were by no means meant as a suggestion for a possible wording. I'm glad we agree that these arguments should be included in one form or another, though. You seem to think that I am trying to play down the criticism aimed at the USA. But the basic ideas I put forward work as answers to those saying: "But other countries do this, too, if the USA get singled out, it must be because the world is envious, hates our freedom, etc. pp.". While many people would object to this notion, it is non-trivial to make an objective and universally convincing case that the USA are behaving considerably worse than any other nation. My point is that there is no need to prove such a thing to justify some criticism of the US, and there is no need for some deep-rooted hatred of freedom to explain it: It is a fact that the US are currently the dominant power on this globe, dominant to a degree that makes them the proverbial elephant in the China store, which means they have to be more careful than anyone else (cue Spiderman quote). ... I'll admit that the popularity thing is less straight-forward, and I didn't emphasize enough that this argument doesn't hold for all countries (you could have done a lot better in supporting your assertions, too). It is not an attempt to belittle any problems when I state that the world expects the US to do better than some despotic governments -- quite the opposite, in fact: It means that Americans saying "well, but <insert some cracy dictator or terrorist> does it, too" will not impress the world. ... Bottom line is: I did not say "we have double standards and that's not fair towards the US", I am saying there are objective reasons for the world to use different standards when judging the USA, but we should be aware why that is the case.Rl 13:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, its a valid point to say that 'relativist denouncements can be countered with relativist defenses,' so I dont see the need for all the words. -SV 19:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was hoping for some condensed text with a lot less words, since it is an important part of the debate. But I'm not in a position to write and suggest an actual wording right now. I'll let it rest.Rl 20:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While to some degree it may be true that powerful nations/empires tend to catch more resistance and anti-feelings, the question rather remains if this is purely do to the mere fact that they are a big player with influence, or rather that one leads to the other (arrogance, etc.) As the saying goes; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Maybe the USA, as the only 'superpower' is also 'supercorrupted'? Taken as a whole, this may be a bit simplistic: after all, even being anti-american myself (in the definition as I see it) I would still rank the USA way better then some dictatorial banana-republic where whole minorities are slaughtered. But still, it does contain some grain of truth, that the more powerful one is, the more one is inclined to misuse their power. In this option, the criticism of other countries (or individuals) are not improper, and the anti-USA feelings are understandable.

As a sidenote; I'm not FOR deleting the page. While the definition of anti-americanism can vary a lot (and that should be reflected in the page), one must concede that the term is readily used (even by our prime-minister, I believe) so it is definately something that reflects a real issue --BN

The term is a creation of use; historically and currently-the article should contain examples of that use, within their contexts, and respect the intelligence of the reader enough to include a treatment of that context. This is the usual debate for this page; whether to discuss in context of other terms, the perception of a persecution. Again, its its endless self-mockery that the "superpower" is the persecuted one. ;)-SV

"the more powerful one is, the more one is inclined to misuse their power". I tend to agree if you define power as relative. Your local war lord (or heck, class bully) may well be more likely to abuse his power than your prime minister, simply because in a smaller environment, power is relatively bigger. Rl 15:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This answer carries with it an implication of benevolence. Am I mistaken?