• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

Defining the term "anti-Americanism"

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I don't get it...
Is India the clam dip or the avacado dip?
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Sanctions were levied against both India and Pakistan in May 1998 after nuclear test conducted by each country. In April 2001 a Bill was introduced to lift these sanction against both countries. In September 2001, George Bush signed an Executive Order lifting these sanctions. Sanctions imposed on Pakistan after the Government was deposed by a coup remained in place.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

There's a B-Movie called Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, in which some scientists (Shannon Tweed, Bill Maher) go in search of some Amazons who kill men and eat them with avocado dip. Along the way they run into another tribe of Amazon women, and trying to reassure our heroes, one of these other women says something like:
"We are diametrically opposed to the Pirranha women. They actually believe that men should be killed and eaten with avocado dip, whereas we believe that men should be killed and eaten with clam dip."


I guess, I was not wrong after all, Pranav
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 264
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:

I guess, I was not wrong after all, Pranav


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.......sorry pakka... :roll: Dont knwo what i was thinking.........
However if you make out what the context of the Dips was......please let me know....
Map I guess Americanism is not what we can figure out here. B Grade movies anyone ???
[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: Pranav Jaidka ]
[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: Pranav Jaidka ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Pranav Jaidka:
However if you make out what the context of the Dips was......please let me know....



Clam Dip
Ingredients:
6-1/2 oz (1 can) chopped or minced clams, drained
1 package cream cheese; softened (lowfat is okay)
Optional: 1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce, 1 Tablespoon lemon juice
Directions:
Place the cream cheese in a bowl. When soft, use a fork to stir until smooth. Drain the clams, reserving the juice. Add the clams and 1-2 tablespoons of clam juice. (Add more to make the dip smoother and creamier.) Optionally, add Worcestershire sauce and/or lemon juice.
Great served with plain potato chips, or raw veggies.

Note: It's less messy to allow the cream cheese to soften in the bowl after you unwrap it, instead of letting it soften in the package.
Prep time: 5 minutes



Avocado Dip
Make sure your avocados are ripe or this will turn out
lumpy. Prep Time: approx. 30 Minutes. Ready in: approx. 30
Minutes. Makes 16 servings.
Printed from Allrecipes, Submitted by Sue Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 avocados
1 cup mayonnaise
1 cup sour cream
1/2 (1 ounce) package taco
seasoning mix
2 (16 ounce) cans refried beans
3 cups shredded Cheddar cheese
1/2 cup shredded lettuce
1 large chopped fresh tomato
2 green onions, chopped
1/2 cup green bell pepper
1/4 cup sliced black olives

Directions
1 Spread refried beans evenly on a medium sized serving
platter. If the beans are watery, chill for 20 to 30 minutes.
2 Peel the avocados and remove the pits. In a food
processor, blend the avocados with the mayonnaise, sour cream and
taco seasoning until smooth. Pour over the refried beans.
Top with cheddar cheese. Add lettuce, tomatoes, green
onions, green pepper and black olives if desired. Refrigerate
until serving. Serve with your favorite tortilla chips.


[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm not sure if the US policy on sactions with India and Pakistan is stupid. I do know that it is practical. The US needed Pakistan's help and there was a price to pay. The US is not omnipotent. All we can do is respond to the conditions in the world the best we can and hope for the best.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
And I was thinking that we were trying to define anti-Americanism
Or we are discussing US foreign policies.
When I(Ravish) meet someone, here or personally or on chat or on mail ... or anywhere in the world, I see him/her only. I dont care which religion/nation/society he belongs.
If s/he is nice(as per my thoughts), I am nice to him/her else I dont care becoz I and no one can change someone's thinking. Only time and circumctances can change thoughts/man.
Canada? Or more specifically, Vancouver, Ottawa or Toronto? Under the right conditions I suppose so. China? Maybe, if you know people and know the system and have some money to start.

When you are talking abt US, talk abt US.
Why do we want to compare things which cant be compared??
AW if I am against anything then it is thinking of that person. You cant judge society/nation/religion on the basis of one person's act.
Regarding foreign policies, this is work of polititians and obviously every nation will see its own benefit. Neither I nor YOU can make your polititians to do what you want. The only think we can do is elect them. That is also a number game.
But there is one point from old thread (do not want to reply there):


Here are some questions to consider in the processL What is XYZCountry's track record for seeking multilateral action against its enemies? Which other superpowers does it count as historical or treaty-based allies? How much does XYZCountry spend on foreign aid every year? Which other countries does XYZCountry offer medical, military, and logistical aid to in times of crisis and in return support XYZCountry's actions abroad?


Let us come to man level, I am thinking of nation as man.
I am man, who is being threatend by some one. But as someone thinks(because of ignorance) that I dont do charity and and dont give money to begger. I have no right to fight with that goon.
Is not it funny ?? Does it necessary to fight with goon you should do charity ??
I might be wrong but the message I got is that to fight with goon you should do charity.
And now, I do charity (as per one), first time I fight with goon with support of other men.
Now I have one my personal enemy, I also want him to die (reason, I think he will kill me), but this time I am not getting support. I can declare, I will do what is in my interest and I dont care what you say. (because I have done charity and I have killed one goon, SO NOW I CAN DO WHAT I WANT.)
As per me who thinks like that is WRONG. Neither nation, not religion, PERSON is wrong(as per me)
[ January 18, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Certainly, someone saying that they have lived in many countries and like the US best is not arrogant.
Is not it true in the case of other nations also.
If the wording is, "but I like my country best".
So is it abt US or abt motherland
The post said, "the way of life I prefer best..." The post did not say that the US is better or that other countries suck.
Post said : "I've found that the way of life I prefer is back in the good ol U S of A.
"
Same thing, Its not abt US but its about motherland.
If it would have that good that my friend's wife would have delivered her first child in US. But she came India, just because she did not want her kid to born in US. When I asked why had she come back. She said she did not want her child to born their. She did not like the way of life of US that much than she came Inida in 8 month pregnancy and delevered child here.
At that time I was surprised, even I told her that if I get this opportunity then I would like my child to born there so that s/he become US citizen.
Now I think I would have done the same.
Chauhaan Aunty, she is wife of my uncle who is Prof in BHU, Varanasi. When uncle went to US for some research or God knows why, she also went there with him (I was kid at that time, I think it was 1986). She came back after 3 months. She did not like US's way of life. Even at that time I did not understand why she had come because she used to tell us about lot of things which we had never seen in terms of technology. TV with remote was one of them.
China's leaders are criminals. They have violated the UN charter and if they weren't leaders of such a powerful country they would be arrested for the murders they committed in Tiananmen Square.
I read somewhere:
People get the Government, what they deserve.
Why we are discussing it. Let them be criminal or lawyer.
Why US trade with China if this is the case.
So we have no right to say this. Does it matter to you as a man or nation. We always see our interest only.
Is not it that all foreign policies based on own interest. Dont tell me that any nation consider anything else for foreign policy except their own interest.
Do you mean that we must love other countries even if they have policies that are inhuman?
Its not about love or hate.
Why we should talk about the lady who sells her body. I might be her brother.
All of us are discussing John. Do you know him? Have been in the conditions/circustances in which he was. Who are we to discuss this.
Many of us may cliam that they have seen this or that. I can only say, if you have seen lightning means you are alive.
And when we do treat countries like China without regards to their human rights violations, we get complaints for that.
You or your govt. ?
And even if you have problem, discuss it in home OR declare that this site is not International site only US citizen are allowed.
We cant discuss our home problem in park/garden infront of 1000's strangers. Do we??
I dont like all those guys who want to discuss their internal matter here. Let it be conversion in India or any other internal matter ??
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 287
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hate to jump in late but this thread really sparked my imagination. I really think anti-americanism depends on who you are talking to & who the sentiment is coming from. Right now its a rebute to the "strong arm" tactics some see the US as taking, to some it is the old "den of sin" thoery. Americans seem to do everything to excess, drink, swear, etc. etc. etc. So a great idea is beaten to death in this country. Can this excess cause an anti-american sentitment, sure enough. But then again I have to wonder how many people in the world only see things from the US either from the movies or their "local spin" in the news.
Whats funny is another swerve from the "what is americanism comment from erin" (Hey Bud!). I live outside of NY & I defy anyone to find a more culturally diverse section of the world. Black, White, Asian, Russian, Indian, French...need I go on? Every block you drive brings the culture of the country the people came from, or for that fact where in the US they may have come from. I grew up in the mid-west (Ohio) ....totally different world. At 18 I moved to Texas (I know not a great choice).... man you want to talk aout culture shock! If there is an A-Typical american Ill eat my hat! Along with this diversity comes a multitude of attitudes about what being an American is....hence I ask again, define an American...if you can define that then MAYBE you can define americanism. Then maybe you can define anti-americanism.
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
And I was thinking that we were trying to define anti-Americanism
Or we are discussing US foreign policies.


This is a very valid comment. Just to remind: the goal of this thread is to discuss what we understand by "anti-Americanism", not to examplify it -- this is what all other threads are for.
Occasional examples are welcomed, but be beware that they will be used as illustrative material.
Let's check what we got so far...
First, "anti-Americanism" can be defined in an unlimited number of ways, and my interest is rather pragmatic - how do we understand it here, in MD.
I think, I did get better understanding of what Jason sees as "anti-American" tendencies. Hope others did too...
What motivates "anti-American" posters -- I do not think I need to ask, I do feel sympathy, fortunately or unfortunately.
To summarize, we have two main problems.
1. pride-arrogance axis. What Americans may see as mere and legitimate pride, can be perceived as "arrogance" by another party. I think, discussing this balance is beneficial for everybody. For Americans not to go too far in their pride, and for anti-Americans for not to dismiss what the USA has perfect reasons to be proud of.
2. Since most of "anti-Americans" happened to be of Indian origin, the main issue is the USA's support of Pakistan.
There was a post of Jason that was read as he makes no distinction between India and Pakistan, and some disguised insults notwithstanding, I would humbly ask Jason to clarify his position. Did you mean "nuclear weapon" problem or the USA attitude toward India and Pakistan in general?
Pranav Jaidka:
However if you make out what the context of the Dips was......please let me know....

I would protest against exchange of recipes here, if you are hungry, start your own thread!
Map I guess Americanism is not what we can figure out here. B Grade movies anyone ???
Americanism... Ersin made a good point that to define "anti-Americanism" we first need to figure out what "Americanism" is. So it would be nice if somebody clarified...
But there is another meta-point I would like to point to. To accuse the USA in death of many Iraqis as a result of "American" sanctions became a common tactics. Jason made a good post on it, so did it make you change your mind? Yes, no? If you still disagree, you should probably say so, because I can understand how Americans can get infuriated when they explain their motives/provide facts, and there is nothing but silence as a response.
Maybe we should try to discuss one selected topic to the death, rather than jump from one issue to another...
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
After reading DC Dalton's post...
I would expect there is no way to have Americans themselves to either agree or disagree on what "American" or "anti-American" means...
So I would restrict the discussion to what our most prominent posters (like Jason Menard) understand by "American" or "anti-American" - to make it both personal and meaningful.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by DC Dalton:
[QB]Whats funny is another swerve from the "what is americanism comment from erin" (Hey Bud!). I live outside of NY & I defy anyone to find a more culturally diverse section of the world. Black, White, Asian, Russian, Indian, French...need I go on? ...[/B]


I have appreciated it, that its very plus point if US that it does not have any thing like society or culture, which is being given a name "American culture".
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Link
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
 
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

This is a very valid comment. Just to remind: the goal of this thread is to discuss what we understand by "anti-Americanism", not to examplify it -- this is what all other threads are for.


I thought this was a crusade against the debating tactics of Jason Meynard and Thomas Paul...
 
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Every where in the world and through out the history, people have spoken and even raised arms against the system or policies. Monarchy in Russia was overthrown by Communists. Were communists anti-Russia? Then some people removed communism and brought democracy in Russia. Were they anti-Russia? I don't think so. But they all spoke agaisnt the current system.
On the same lines, I do not believe that everybody who opposes American policies is anti-america. A voice of dissidence is not always a voice of treason or betrayal or whatever.
Therefore, calling somebody who opposes American Policies as Anti-American is not only unfair but shows lack of maturity, imho. This applies not only to US but to all countries.
 
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I'm not sure if the US policy on sactions with India and Pakistan is stupid. I do know that it is practical. The US needed Pakistan's help and there was a price to pay. The US is not omnipotent. All we can do is respond to the conditions in the world the best we can and hope for the best.


It might seem practical but I think it is like doing another wrong to fix the previous wrong.
The epicenter of terrorism is in Pakistan. And until US tackles that authoritatively, it will never have peace. Terrorist have public support in Pakistan. When the common man in Pakistan is harbouring terrorists, how can US even think that giving aid etc. will help its cause?? Common man does not even realize what aid means, what economy means. They don't realize because they don't get to see the benefits of the aid. They don't understand the benefit of economic upliftment. If they did, they wouldn't be harboroufing terrorists in the first place.
On top of that, their leaders open support terrorism (agaisnt India, at least). Do you really think that terroristic force can be channelized like this (i.e. against India but not against US)? Terrorists are mad men, they see no difference between India, US and Israel.
I'm not sure what US thinks about it but if it believes that it can save itself from terrorism by cajoling Pakistan to direct the terrorists elsewhere, it is grossly mistaken.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ravish, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person preferring their own country over the US. There is nothing wrong with someone preferring the US over another country.
I do get annoyed at people who come here from foreign countries and complain about the US. If they hate it so much why don't they go home? There are plenty of people anxiously waiting for visas who would be more than happy to take their place here.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
The epicenter of terrorism is in Pakistan.

You have to admit that you are less than objective. After 9/11 it was the Taliban that had to be destroyed. That wouldn't have happened without Pakistan's help. It has become quite obvious that with or without the support of Pakistan, certain parts of Pakistan are hotbeds of terrorist activity. But the US is concentrating on Iraq and North Korea right now. Pakistan has been arresting terrorists but it is obviously not enough.
 
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You have to admit that you are less than objective. After 9/11 it was the Taliban that had to be destroyed. That wouldn't have happened without Pakistan's help.


I am not sure I agree with that. Pakistan had to help, rather fall in line. It had no option. I think US missed a good chance of fixing Pakistan. Taliban was only a symptom.


It has become quite obvious that with or without the support of Pakistan, certain parts of Pakistan are hotbeds of terrorist activity.


Certain parts? :roll:


But the US is concentrating on Iraq and North Korea right now.


This will never end. There will be distractions all the time. Today it's North Korea tomorrow it will be somebody else. That way US will never be able to get back to Pakistan will be tangled in all other messes. Meanwhile, terrorists will thrive in Pakistan and keep US on its toes.
In fact, North Korea episode has proved without any doubt that the policy of apeasement did not work. And I have no doubt that it will not work for Pakistan either.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
I do not believe that everybody who opposes American policies is anti-america. A voice of dissidence is not always a voice of treason or betrayal or whatever.


You are correct and I don't think that anyone will argue with you on this.

Therefore, calling somebody who opposes American Policies as Anti-American is not only unfair but shows lack of maturity, imho. This applies not only to US but to all countries.


If you go back to the definitions, you can boil down anti-Americanism to "an irrational bias". Both of those words, irrational and bias are key.
A person might have a very real problem with a given policy. However when he lets the problem he has with that particular policy affect how he views other unrelated policies, we are getting into the area of an irrational bias.
(The US did X and I didn't like it) -> (The US are idiots)
(The US are idiots) -> (Policies Y and Z must also be idiotic)
Sorry folks but one can't rationally make that kind of a leap. That is however what is happening in many cases. In other words, "I oppose US action in Iraq because the US imposed sanctions on North Korea" is not rational. Of course few people will make this direct corallary, but what happens is that the person's intense dislike of "the US imposing sanctions on North Korea" creates a bias that may irrationally lead to "I oppose US action in Iraq".
The irrational biases show up pretty plainly in debate. Often you'll see elements of scapegoating, demonization, and an attempt to connect unrealted events or draw unsupported conclusions.
An example would be "I oppose US action in Iraq because they just want to control all the Iraqi oil". Well, the US has stated why it wants to undertake action in Iraq, and I don't recall "controlling all the Iraqi oil" being one of those reasons, so there must be something that would make somebody come up with a statement like that. For one thing, if a person wants to try to head down that road, they need to be able to support their statements in a rational manner. How can the person rationalize the part about "controlling all the Iraqi oil"? Usually they can't. In the absense of facts, there is most likely an irrational bias that leads to such a statement.
Ok, what about the person with no irrational bias who opposes US action in Iraq. Hopefully they can make a rational argument factually countering the reasons the US gives for why actions should be taken in Iraq. Think about it, if somebody is going to rationally oppose something, shouldn't there be rational arguments behind this opposition? Emotional opposition is not rational, nor is opposition based on unrelated events or unsupported conclusions.
So to sum up, you are quite correct in that somebody who opposes US policies is not necessarily anti-American. Somebody who opposes most US policies with no rational basis behind this opposition would however seem to fit the definitions of anti-American given in the first post.
Additionally I would add that predicating a definition of anti-American on the definition of American is not correct. An American by definition is a person. If you look at the definitions given for anti-Americanism you will see that they refer to people, institutions, and policies. I would argue that "people, institutions, and policies" are subsets of America and not subsets of American, therefore the more correct term would be anti-America-ism. However since anti-America-ism doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, we end up with anti-Americanism.
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

I do get annoyed at people who come here from foreign countries and complain about the US. If they hate it so much why don't they go home?


Believe me, people who come to America do NOT hate America. (I am not talking abt terrorists who get visas somehow but normal people.) These people know how their country is and based on that they've made a choice. They may love their their original country more, but they certainly don't hate America.
In fact, I would say, leaving your own country for US is one way of showing dissidence. They do love their respective countries but at the same time they are voicing their dissidence against the prevailing system in their country.
I think, your definition of hate is too broad and is mistakenly encompassing all the people who do not agree with you.
 
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

If you go back to the definitions, you can boil down anti-Americanism to "an irrational bias". Both of those words, irrational and bias are key.


Ok, I agree with your "irrational bias" concept. Now can you please tell me where in my posts did you find such an irrational bias that you call me Anti-American?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
I think, your definition of hate is too broad and is mistakenly encompassing all the people who do not agree with you.

I think you are mistaken. I never said that I have a problem with people who disagree with me. I am talking about people who come to the US and then complain about our culture, and our work ethic, and 100 other things. When I hear immigrants say, "my country is so much better than the US," then my response is, "Fine, then go back and give someone else a chance to live here."
 
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think you are mistaken. I never said that I have a problem with people who disagree with me. I am talking about people who come to the US and then complain about our culture, and our work ethic, and 100 other things. When I hear immigrants say, "my country is so much better than the US," then my response is, "Fine, then go back and give someone else a chance to live here."


The fact that they are in US means that they overall rate US better than their own country. However, it is definitely possible that they think that their country is better than US in some particular aspects.
For example, I think that the family values in India are a lot better than in US. (Now please don't argue over it. This is what I think based on my experience. YMMV). Does that make me Anti-American?
There might be some person who thinks that his country is better than US in 100 or even 1000 other aspects. But still, US is better overall. Simply because he/she is in US by choice. If it were not so, he/she would have long gone. Don't you think so?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Don't you think so?


No. I think some people are here for one thing and one thing only... money.
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

No. I think some people are here for one thing and one thing only... money.
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]


And that one thing far outweighs 100 other things.
Hey guys, are you swapping sides ??
Pakka is proposing that some people like to be in US for many other good things and it is not just money. And Thomas says, some people like to be in US not for any other thing and it is just money.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Ok, I agree with your "irrational bias" concept. Now can you please tell me where in my posts did you find such an irrational bias that you call me Anti-American?


I'm pretty sure I've never said that you were an anti-American. I did however refer to "seemingly demonstrated anti-American tendancies (as I see it)". Whereas I see a difference between the two, I admit it is not fair if I expect others to interpret things the same as myself.
I would have preferred to PM this, but you have that option disabled. But to answer your question, I remember this as one right off the top of my head:
PD: As far as I am concerned, US holds no moral superiority over others. It is just another bully and just another instance of "Might is Right" philosophy. The fact that it is a wealthy and successfull (in general) nation is definitely apreciable but that's it.
In that same thread you made a statement that another poster labelled as not generally being accepted by "those without an ax to grind". My own interpretation of those particular statements does't matter, I only highlight the other poster's reaction as an indication that he may have detected some irrational bias, although I may be mistaken on this point.
In another thread you made some comments that led yet another poster to draw the conclusion that you were "very intent on bashing the US". Again, this person also seemed to think that you had some kind of irrational bias.
I'm not levelling any accusations at all. I am merely trying to point out that at least three different people in three separate instances appear to have detected an irrational bias. In fact I only point it out because you are asking.
I think it very likely that you didn't mean to portray such a bias, or equally likely that these comments may have been simply misinterpreted. You are a bit harder to read than some and you appear very capable of making intelligent debate. When I went back to look, I was thinking that my first impression was not necessarily correct (and it may very well not be). However then I saw that other people were making similar characterizations, which would lead to the question of "why?". It may simply be a function of an imprecise medium that doesn't always lend itself well to effective communication, it could be some fault on our part, it could be some fault on your part, or some combination of all of these factors.
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

No. I think some people are here for one thing and one thing only... money.
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]


Anti-Americansim has two different contexts that sometimes are not related. One is in relation to the distinctive nature of America itself; it is the land of the greatest freedom in nearly every sphere of human activity imaginable. Some people actually hate America for that. Religious fundamentalists of nearly every major religion, inside and outside the US, find that at least somewhat disturbing becuase it allows what they consider to be immoral to exist. Because of the great economic freedom, income inequality exists (never minding the fact that overall prosperity remains very high) and for that reason socialists are disturbed. Control freaks of any type are also disturbed by all this freedom.
The second context involves the foreign policy of the US govt. which can be totally unrelated to the promoting of freedom in other countries. Often US policy is to promote freedom and often the local entrenched political/relgious powers hate that. Other times the US policy is to preserve the freedom of its citizens by supporting govts that are less likely to injure the interests of the US. The people who are oppressed thereby, even if they would be more oppressed by the likely alternative form of local govt, naturally hate us.
In regards to other comments on the immorality of the US : Who was majorly responsible for stabilizing the Balkans and preventing further bloodshed on two separate occassions? How often have other countries (in all of recorded history) sent so much assistance so far away for such purposes? Who has sent so much food aid around the world? Who tried to distribute food in Somalia against armed opposition of the local thugs while people starved? When, in all of human history, has a victor rebuilt its enemies economically and politically as happened in Japan and Germany after WWII? etc, etc, etc.
 
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I'm pretty sure I've never said that you were an anti-American. I did however refer to "seemingly demonstrated anti-American tendancies (as I see it)". Whereas I see a difference between the two, I admit it is not fair if I expect others to interpret things the same as myself.
I would have preferred to PM this, but you have that option disabled. But to answer your question, I remember this as one right off the top of my head:
PD: As far as I am concerned, US holds no moral superiority over others. It is just another bully and just another instance of "Might is Right" philosophy. The fact that it is a wealthy and successfull (in general) nation is definitely apreciable but that's it.
In that same thread you made a statement that another poster labelled as not generally being accepted by "those without an ax to grind". My own interpretation of those particular statements does't matter, I only highlight the other poster's reaction as an indication that he may have detected some irrational bias, although I may be mistaken on this point.
In another thread you made some comments that led yet another poster to draw the conclusion that you were "very intent on bashing the US". Again, this person also seemed to think that you had some kind of irrational bias.
I'm not levelling any accusations at all. I am merely trying to point out that at least three different people in three separate instances appear to have detected an irrational bias. In fact I only point it out because you are asking.
I think it very likely that you didn't mean to portray such a bias, or equally likely that these comments may have been simply misinterpreted. You are a bit harder to read than some and you appear very capable of making intelligent debate. When I went back to look, I was thinking that my first impression was not necessarily correct (and it may very well be). However then I saw that other people were making similar characterizations, which would lead to the question of "why?". It may simply be a function of an imprecise medium that doesn't always lend itself well to effective communication, it could be some fault on our part, it could be some fault on your part, or some combination of all of these factors.


You are taking it out of context because I also said that I do not have a problem with this and that if India were as powerful as US, it would do the same. My point was that nobody is morally superior here. Everbody works for his best interest. The whole process of evolution has been like that. So I don't believe that US is morally superior (and neither inferior, I also said this) than anybody else.
If you observerd, I have also always said that there are many things in the US that I would like to happen in India. So I don't think I have any irrational bias against US. In fact, I really admire the way US does stuff (I have said that before) but that does not mean I admire all that it does.
Why people see me as anti-american? I don't know. May be they have an irrational bias.
Regarding the largess that US gives, you (not you particularly, Jason) are probably not aware but India also does that. India has a substantial peace keeping force in Africa somewhere...I guess Somalia. India has and is doing a lot in Afghanistan such as building hospitals (Their biggest hospital is Indira Gandhi hospital, built and run by India). India has been giving a lot prostheics to Afghn amputees(famous as Jaipur foot). India is training Afgn police force and administrative officers in India. Recently India has given a big food aid to Bangladesh.
Of course, if you compare it with US it is probably not much but it does what it can.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think the US is morally superior to some countries. I wouldn't say that the US is morally superior to every country.
 
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:

And that one thing far outweighs 100 other things.
Hey guys, are you swapping sides ??
Pakka is proposing that some people like to be in US for many other good things and it is not just money. And Thomas says, some people like to be in US not for any other thing and it is just money.


Well, some people may come here just for the money but then why do almost all of them apply for permanent residency if all they want is to earn money and go back?
Further, people move from one place to another for money all the time. Don't you relocate for NYC to say SFO for job or even just for better pay (I know many people who did that)? Given a chance a New Yorker in SFO would probably come back to NYC. Does that mean he hates SFO or is Anti-SFO?
So why do you think somebody who has come here for money necessarily hate US? It's not like he barged in here, looted the money and went away! (The way imperialists did... but I digress). You have laws to bring people in for doing different sorts of jobs. That's your requirement. He wants money, that his requirement. I don't think he has to hate US or you have to hate him.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Well, some people may come here just for the money but then why do almost all of them apply for permanent residency if all they want is to earn money and go back?


Because they find out what a great country the US is, of course!
Why are you putting words in my mouth? It's very unsanitary. How do I know where those words have been? I didn't say that I have a problem with people who come here just for money. I have a problem with people who come here and gripe about what an awful country the US is.
 
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Because they find out what a great country the US is, of course!
Why are you putting words in my mouth? It's very unsanitary. How do I know where those words have been? I didn't say that I have a problem with people who come here just for money. I have a problem with people who come here and gripe about what an awful country the US is.


I am sorry, you are plying words game here. I said that the fact the a person has decided to stay here means that he overall rates US better than his own country and so he does not hate US. If it were not the case, he would go back.
Then you said, no some people are here just for the money.
Now, what should I infer from this? I infered that you mean to say some people are here just for the money and so they hate US. If thats not what you meant, what was your point?
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Is the NY Times attempt to sell this picture of Nikita Krushchev beating his shoe on the desk at the UN anti-Soviet?


Thanks for the link. I sent E-mail to legatees of comrade Khrushchev to check for possible copyright violation. We do not want capitalistic NY Times to make money selling the picture of their communistic enemy. What a cynicism -- to try to make profit selling a pic of the highest point in the Soviet foreign policy.
Kidding.
Your link reminded me that his son, Sergei Khrushchev, lives in the US and even became American citizen. (Now this is something that I really appreciate about the US). I wasn' sure if he got citizenship and googling this fact found a few interviews with him, very interesting.
"Now it reminded me when my father talked to President Eisenhower and the president asked him, "Mr. Chairman, how do you deal with your military?" and my father was surprised why he asked such a question. But the president told, you know, that our generals, when they visit me and informed me that Soviets designed this and this and this, so they are becoming much stronger, and they need more funding to design their own weapons. And President Eisenhower told I'm answering that we have no more money in our budget, and military answered him, if you will not give us this money which is required, you will be responsible that we will lose the war. And so, Eisenhower told, at last I'm finding this money and paying for the new research. And my father then told President Eisenhower that this same thing had happened in the Soviet Union. So the president told my father, then maybe we will find how we can work together against our military."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/khrushchev/
"And it was very big difference in their conversations, because when they speak as a human being, the person who went through the two wars, their understanding with each other was very good and they had the same understanding how to deal with military. But when they sat to the table of the negotiations, they could not solve any problem."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-7/khrushchev1.html
Chat Participant: What were your first thoughts when you heard of Kennedy's death? What were your father's comments?
Sergei Khrushchev: I remember this evening very well. It was late evening in Moscow at that time. The foreign minister, Gromyko, called my father at home and my father was very upset and he asked him to call to the ambassador to confirm if it's true. And then he waited. He could not sit. He walked around the table awaiting the call. In 10 minutes, there were no call, and he called back to the foreign minister. And he asked, do you have the new information? And he said, no, I'm just waiting the connection to the embassy in Russia. My father said, I told you to call the American embassy in Moscow, it's much easier. But there was no need to call. Because it was announced that President Kennedy was dead. My father said, we have to send very high level delegation for his funeral. It was unusual, because we were really enemies. And he told my mother that you have to send a personal letter to Jacqueline Kennedy, which was even more unusual. And what I can tell really, the Soviet people liked the President Kennedy, maybe because he was young and dynamic. I was personally very upset.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/khrushchev/
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I am talking about people who come to the US and then compain about how awful it is here. You said they wouldn't do that because they obviously like the US otherwise they would leave. I pointed out that you are wrong that some come here to make money and hate the US. Those are the people I am complaining about. If you don't like the US then leave and let someone else immigrate here who wants to live here. Is it clear now?
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
INT: There was of course throughout this whole period the fear of a thermo-nuclear war. How strongly influenced was your father by that fear?
SK: "My father took part in two wars, Civil War in Russia and then Second World War, so he saw everything by his own eyes. And for last of his day, he never could even watch the movies about the war on TV. He tried to shoot the channel, because he thought I cannot sleep after this. So he tried to do everything to prevent the war."
INT: Talking about protecting areas of the world which were part of the Soviet area of influence, what was your father's attitude to countries like Poland and Hungary and others in what they called the satellite countries?
SK: "His feeling to all the East European countries and Poland and Hungary, not as the satellites. He told it here, this country decided to be socialist and in future all the countries in the world will make the similar decision. So his idea was even to withdraw the Soviet troops from Poland, from Hungary and he spoke with this with Gromulko and the Party Secretary of Poland and he received the answer, no. So he want to do as much as he can to these countries, but for other side, not to pay too much, because he told you that we need the resources to our own economy."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-7/khrushchev2.html
SK: "When we talk about relations with the other Socialist countries, my father's behaviour was different from Stalin. He did not think that they must live under the Moscow decisions, like the satellites, they were the puppet countries. He tried to speak with all of them, to find out what they want and really he thought that you cannot survive sitting on the Soviet bayonets. Why he talk about withdrawal the troops, thought you must show to the West (inaudible) withdrawal troop, we will show to the West that these governments, supported by the people, so his feeling was... maybe to be surprise to you, was close to the West feeling and the relation with their countries. He think that each of these countries must be free, make their own decisions, but they must, all of them, support one idea. The same like democracy here and the free market here, the same the Socialism there."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-7/khrushchev3.html
INT: What did your father offer as an explanation for the Soviet invasion of Hungary in November 1956? What was the thinking that he gave you or others that you know of?
SK: "Well, you know, at that time, it was (inaudible) the United States invaded in Guatemala, because it was their part of the influence, it was our part of the influence. So to my father and to me also, because we never can give possibility to Hungary, to Poland, to any other countries to leave our part of the influence and to go to the West." <...>
"So, it was one possibility to use the force. It was very complicated decision to my father. He thought for three or four days, he talk with the Chinese, with other representatives and one time they decided not to use force and they don't know. We have to use force, yes, no, yes, no. At last it was decision, yes, to use it."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-7/khrushchev2.html

I got better understanding of how Cold War worked after watching some of what was going on here, in MD, after 9/11. Cold War in miniature. A lot of misunderstanding, misinterpretations, seeing the opposite side in worst possible sense, finding excuses for our own decisions and demonizing the opponent...
Disclaimer: I was mostly talking about our dialogues right after 9/11. It's getting better lately and this particular thread is just awesome
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I never told this to you before , but Thomas made me read a great book "Le Tom beau de Marot" by D.Hofstadter, that changed my ideas about translation of poetry. I always thought there is no sense in attempts to translate poetry; prose - yes, but not poetry. Now I see that this much more complex, and in fact such operation is very interesting.
Recently I bought a book with Brodsky's poems translated in English and can get almost all he wrote in Russian from the Internet So I started to compare... Funny thing, I first read English text, and then Russian, and caught myself on thinking about Russian text as translation. "Hm... Is this accurate?" I felt dizzy... Sometimes I liked Russian text better, sometimes English. Wasn't sure any more what is a "real" original and what is a copy. They are both "original" to me.
I found one piece of Brodsky's "Lithuanian Nocturne. To Tomas Venclova"
that somehow summarizes my current understanding of what "Americanism" and "anti-Americanism" is... So, there


Tomas, we are alike;
we are, frankly, a double:
your breath
dims the same windowpane that my features befuddle.
We're each other's remote
amalgam underneath,
in a lackluster puddle,
a simultaneous nod.
Twist your lips - I"ll reply with the similar grimace of dread.
I'll respond to your yawn with my mouth's gaping mollusc.
I'll cry rivers to your
hundred-watt swollen tear overhead.
We're a mutual threat,
Castor looming through Pollux,
we're a stalemate, no-score,
draw, long shadows' distress
brought to walls by a match that will die in a minute,
echoes tracing in vain the original cry
as small change does its note.
The more life has been ruined, the less
is the chance to distinguish us in it
with an indolent eye.

 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I am so glad that you enjoyed that book. It is one of those little treasures that you want to share with friends but you know that they won't enjoy it the way that you do. I knew you would enjoy it.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thomas Paul: It is one of those little treasures that you want to share with friends but you know that they won't enjoy it the way that you do.
A friend of mine once said that the worst thing is when nobody needs what you can give.
Speaking about "negative bias", Tom, frankly, I was deeply disturbed by the idea that Americans believe that Stalin planned to "conquer" the world together with Hitler. It sounds totally fantastical to me. I just read Nikita's Khrushchev memoirs and I refuse to believe he made all this up afterwards, he sounds sincere, and I never read/heard anything that would contradict this. It was too much for me to translate, so I used automatical translation program and only corrected a few places where it screw up too badly. The original is here, so Michael Matola can check me on it.

"So, the period of "strange war" France and England against Germany when war was declared already was finished, armies are concentrated, but active military actions was not conducted. This "strange war" installed some alarm in management of the Soviet Union. We were afraid, whether it will be finished by arrangement between England and France, on the one hand, and Hitler's Germany - on another therefore the Hitler's military machine will direct to the East, that is against the USSR?
It was quite real, though some of us and in ideas did not suppose it. There wasn't any particular contradiction in such arrangement because both those and other parties stood on capitalist bases; both those and other parties hated the marx-lenin doctrine and our state which was unique island of socialism in a capitalist environment.
News by radio was received, that Germans have entered Paris, the French army capitulated. Here Stalin has broken the isolation and has very nervously sworn to address of the governments of England and France that they have allowed defeat of the armies.
Stalin then very much get angry, very much was nervous. I seldom saw him such. He in general at sessions seldom sat on the chair, usually walked. Here he literally ran on a room and swore, as the carrier. He abused the French, abused Englishmen for they could allow that Hitler has crushed them. <..> Why Stalin so reacted to falling of Paris? Now Germans have executed the purposes in the West, have compelled France to capitulate, have created there the pro-German government For them it was the end of war in France. Germans still had one purpose - to force to capitulate England and to organize intrusion to British isles. The victory of Germans in France is the signal already was, that threat of war against Soviet Union has increased. In the West the forces hostile to Germans, are broken; hence, at them the main task is necessary - to break Soviet Union which attracted Germans for a long time for both riches, and the territory. But the main thing was collision of ideas. You see, Hitler has undertaken the sacred obligation to be the liberator of Europe and the world from marxism. Therefore the main enemy, the enemy N 1 are marxist-lenin ideas, and the main carrier of these ideas and leader them in life - people of Soviet Union. War against us was inevitable. It already was declared in book Hittler "Mein kampf ". This moment came nearer, and Stalin was anxious.
War inevitably approached. Though at meetings Stalin talked on this question very seldom, even avoided this theme, became isolated, but it was appreciable, that he very much worries also it very much disturbs. It was appreciable and to that he by then began to drink, and it is a lot of to drink, and not only himself, but also began to accustom to drinking others.
It is necessary, if he causes, he has a lot of people. he collected as it is possible the greater circle of people. I thought, that he so worries because starts, remaining one, it is bad to feel himself, therefore the big company is necessary for him so that in this company somehow to distract from ideas which disturb him. And ideas are these: inevitability of war, and the main thing (of what he, probably, thought), that in this war we shall suffer defeat.
How I explain Stalin's such behaviour? I think, that he too saw all and understood. When the contract with Ribbentrop was signed, Stalin has told: " Well, who will deceive whom? We shall deceive Hitler! ". he incured all. It was his initiative, he has decided, that he will deceive Hitler. And when we have already received a lesson in war with Finns, and not in our advantage, when Germans has easily crushed armies of the French and Englishmen and rather successfully conducted air operations against Englishmen, bombed cities and the industry of England, here he already in another way considered probable outcome of war and was afraid of it.
As a result of this fear he also did not want anything to do, that could disturb Hitler. Therefore he pressed, that accurately took out to Germany everything, that under the contract it was necessary: and I do not know petroleum, bread, what else goods.
After Molotov's trip to Berlin, there was no doubt that there will be a war. But believed, that this war can be postponed in time. Hitler prepares, war will be untied in the near future and in what, we, certainly, did not know. I think, as Stalin did not know. It cannot be known, because each country hides the beginning of war even if it has made the decision to begin war from the opponent.
External displays of deep experiences, Stalin's sentiments were perceived humanly by me because, really, such danger hung above our country. For Hitler it was possible to subdue the European countries, directly to approach to borders of Soviet Union and to arrange the armies in contact with our armies. They were divided only by the border created after crash of the Polish state. Threat was, I have told, the most real for all history of existence of the USSR. Fatal threat has hung above the Soviet Union. The large countries: Germany, Italy and Japan - were united against us. Well, and others? America is too far from us. It was not known, what it will take a position at an attack of Germans to Soviet Union. England was at war with Germany and kept still independence which was hang by a thread. The English overland army was weak. Whether England will sustain, whether it can resist attempts of hitler's Germany to land in British isles a landing, it was still not known."
Etc.
What do you think?
[ January 18, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Lasagna is spaghetti flvored cake. Just like this tiny ad:
Thread Boost feature
https://coderanch.com/t/674455/Thread-Boost-feature
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic