|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Whether the film introduced something new to them or merely "confirmed" what they already "knew," makes no difference to me. Because it played its part in creating or reconfirming their antiAmericanism. Indeed, one went apoplectic, screaming, "Why do Americans always stick their noses in everyone else's business!"
|
Yes, it reconfirmed what they already believed. We can agree on that. But I guess what I'm saying is that Hollywood's contribution to worldwide anti-Americanism is so slight(basically confined to reconfirming the pre-existing views of the few people who actually watch these films) that I really question why these conservatives even bother making an issue about it. I can't see what practical difference it would make if Hollywood were to stop making anti-American films.
| Quote: |
especially when there are records of at least one Chilean businessman coming to Washington, approaching Nixon through Kissinger and Haldeman, and asking the President to move against Allende.
|
I have to observe that most leftists I know, including the anti-American ones, are quite happy to acknowledge that local elites play a role in American intervention. So I don't think that too many leftists would be upset if it were a Chilean businessman portrayed as begging for an intervention.
But you know more Chilean leftists than I do. Would they have been offended to see someone suggest that Chilean busnessmen supported the coup? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In any case, many Chileans parrot the American far left's U.S.-centric, rapid-fire, allegation-driven discourse on Pinochet and his dictatorship. Are you so naive as to believe that they spontaneously and wholly indigenously arrived at this point? |
No, I'm just saying that the contribution Hollywood makes to that worldview is of little practical significance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| But I guess what I'm saying is that Hollywood's contribution to worldwide anti-Americanism is so slight (basically confined to reconfirming the pre-existing views of the few people who actually watch these films) that I really question why these conservatives even bother making an issue about it. I can't see what practical difference it would make if Hollywood were to stop making anti-American films. |
That is because you are looking at this from a different perspective than I and the others who see what I see. This seems to lead you to minimize Hollywood's immensely authoritative voice on many matters, to many in the world, especially where history is concerned. Have you not heard of the so-called Hollywood vs. History debates? People show films in the classroom, On the other hand.
You also make assertions out of thin air, based on your own beliefs, on Hollywood's worldwide impact. This is something neither of us have measured and this is something that ought to be measured somewhere.
Suffice it to say, we can have a war of assertions all day, On the other hand. My point is merely that Hollywood contributes to the problem, and, in many cases, deliberately. Whether one responds by focusing on this contribution or minimizing it to "little practical significance," in the absence of solid data, it is ultimately a question of worldview, at least here and now. And we already know we have differing worldviews, no?
| On the other hand wrote: |
| But you know more Chilean leftists than I do. Would they have been offended to see someone suggest that Chilean busnessmen supported the coup? |
Yes, it is very simple: generally, they will hear nothing of it. That goes for most leftists in general when discussing this particular event, On the other hand. I do not know which books you have read on the Chilean coup. But I do know that the only one that gives much attn at all to Edwards is the Church Committee's interim report. And they placed him in a footnote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anti-Americanism in Canada generally depends on which party is in power. When the Liberal party is in power and more politicians from the governing party show an active opposition to American foreign policy it's generally a more typical "ha, we're smarter and nicer than the US" kind of feeling, but when a party like the Conservatives is in power like we have now it's more a fear of being assimilated. You can see that in comments like globeandmail.com where people are constantly calling Harper names that I can't recall now, but something similar to Little Bush, shrub and whatnot, comparing him to a little version of G.W. Bush.
It's quite different in Japan vs. Korea for a lot of reasons: Korea through Baekje brought a lot of hanja, Buddhist sutras and whatnot to Japan and feels themselves to be a historical giver of culture to the place, the languages are different, and Korea has no fear of being assimilated into a Japanese sphere of influence, just a fear of being overwhelmed or outclassed on the world stage. And some blame Japan for the peninsula being divided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
But would you? I almost responded to this nonsense. But I asked myself what the point would be. Tiger Beer has mischaracterized and distorted the issue I raised and "responded" to a simplistic binary that I never even suggested [his "Regarding U.S. being hated because of either Hollywood movies or foreign policy..."]. Can you show me where I have made this the issue, On the other hand? You know, whatever it is that he is arguing for or against, and whatever it is that you are agreeing with, I doubt it has much to do with the issue I have raised here.
Hollywood is Washington's "best friend?" Ha! Hollywood and "the rest of the world" merely report what they see? ROFL. I would like to silence Hollywood and "eliminate all forms of free speech?" What the hell is he talking about? Where have I argued, suggested, or even implied such things? Tiger Beer creates the most egregious strawman I have ever seen on this board. Slipped right by you, did it? |
On the other hand: you have come out in support of Tiger Beer's posts twice on this thread. But you have not responded to these questions. Why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| would like to silence Hollywood and "eliminate all forms of free speech?" What the hell is he talking about? Where have I argued, suggested, or even implied such things? |
He didn't say that you did say those things, he said that "some Americans on this board" have said those things. And they have.
Plus, it should be pointed out that at least one of the conservative particiapants in the NPR side of the discussion had this to say...
| Quote: |
Joshua Muravchik, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, continued this theme. He likened the current entertainment industry to an "un-American," Cold War era Hollywood that he claims supported communism � although communism was no longer the cause.
|
Now, this is not a direct call for censorship, but it is a rather suggestive choice of words. Because the phrase "un-American" is pretty closely linked, in a lot of peoples' minds, with Cold War right-wing authoritarianism. So, if Muravchik wasn't trying to portray himself as a proponent of censorship, I'd say he could've chosen better words to express himself.
Gotta run. I'll get back to this tonight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, "some [unnamed] Americans on this board" have called for silencing Hollywood and eliminating all forms of free speech. News to me. But I will take your word for it, even if I have a very hard time with it. I imagine someone must have said this in seriousness and you witnessed it. Not sure how that has anything to do with my position or the debate I meant to create on this thread, though. As I hope you will acknowledge, I have never and would never propose such a thing; I do not know how many times I am going to need to clarify this. But here it is again.
I think you are reading more into Muravchik than is there.
In any case, how about this...
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Regarding U.S. being hated because of either Hollywood movies or foreign policy... |
Is that the issue I have raised on this thread? Because when someone responds so forcefully to a strawman and responds as if they were treating my argument, and then someone else agrees with them without disclaiming the strawman, I will take exception to both of those things and I want to clear this up before moving on.
And what are your thoughts on Tiger Beer's asserting Hollywood cultivates goodwill abroad...? Anyone have any evidence to cite to back up this claim? How about helping me see Tiger Beer's nice, neat separation of "foreign policy" and "economics" more clearly while we are at it?
Marxists have, for a century, elaborated on this link. I do not accept Marxism's reducing everything to this. But I do not see how we can separate these two things anymore, either. Indeed, no professional historian does. Yet here they are, according to Tiger Beer's counterargument: American foreign policy and exclusively American foreign-policy explains why people hate us; but American economics is one of the main reasons people like us and want to live here. I cannot follow that, On the other hand. Can you?
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Hollywood (as well as economics) is one of the main reasons people like us and want to visit or move permanantly to our country... |
Finally, above, you assert Hollywood's "little practical significance." But Tiger Beer turns it around and, moreover, calls it "one of the main reasons people like [America]" without elaborating or explaining how he knows this. In any case, those two claims do not seem to reconcile at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| That is my point. No more no less. There is nothing else to be inferred from this other than this focused point which can be reduced to these two words: "Hollywood contributes." |
Respiration contributes to the growth of cancer but it also contributes to our life and happiness.
Did you ever give your definition of anti-American? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Respiration contributes to the growth of cancer but it also contributes to our life and happiness. |
So what? Respiration, unlike filmmaking, is an unconcsious, involuntary, biological mechanism.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Did you ever give your definition of anti-American? |
No. Kuros's response is fine with me. (See p. 4) And, on top of that, I have listed multiple examples on two threads now, from a far leftist writer who outed hundreds of CIA officers hoping they would be forced to quit or be killed, and who has worked with the Cuban govt for decades to "educate" Latin American and Caribbean readers on America's worse-than-the-Nazis foreign policy, lying on such facts as Salvador Allende's "assassination," to a Hollywood filmmaker or two who often exceed the evidence to ensure audiences will see the American govt as the most sinister of bad guys... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Page 6:
| Quote: |
You also make assertions out of thin air, based on your own beliefs, on Hollywood's worldwide impact. This is something neither of us have measured and this is something that ought to be measured somewhere.
|
Page 1:
| Quote: |
| This is all that America is to them: Blum, Chomsky, Moore, and Stone's America. Then, as in the South-Korean case you mention, they contrast this villified, "typically evil" American govt with their own self-righteous and faultless homeland. And this is in fact the dynamic to which Kimball and the others refer. |
Page 2:
| Quote: |
| However this may be, when one aims to present X, Y, or Z in either a strictly favorable or strictly negative light, this is propaganda. |
So, throughout this thread, you're engaging in anti-Hollywood propaganda?
Maybe some anti-Tiger Beer propaganda as well?
| Quote: |
| I am willing to wager that everything you believe derives from Chomsky and the rest of the New Left as instructed by an entrenched cadre of sympathetic political-science and history professors all over the United States. You were likely raised on The X-Files and Oliver Stone, to cite but two. And, unlike Kuros, you could probably sit through The Good Shepherd without feeling the least bit uncomfortable about anything you saw. You are like those Joaquin Fermandois references when he describes those Americans who hate America and see nothing good in its foreign policy since 1945. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Respiration contributes to the growth of cancer but it also contributes to our life and happiness. |
So what? Respiration, unlike filmmaking, is an unconcsious, involuntary, biological mechanism.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Did you ever give your definition of anti-American? |
No. Kuros's response is fine with me. (See p. 4) And, on top of that, I have listed multiple examples on two threads now, from a far leftist writer who outed hundreds of CIA officers hoping they would be forced to quit or be killed, and who has worked with the Cuban govt for decades to "educate" Latin American and Caribbean readers on America's worse-than-the-Nazis foreign policy, lying on such facts as Salvador Allende's "assassination," to a Hollywood filmmaker or two who often exceed the evidence to ensure audiences will see the American govt as the most sinister of bad guys... |
So you have no definition beyond "anti-Americanism is what I feel is anti-Americanism"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher,
Obviously, there are others on this thread besides just you and the people who disagree with you. One even supports you, and I'll copy and paste from page 4 (as it looks like you missed that page). Our other fellow Americans suggests the following which I was referring to:
| Quote: |
| We need to combat this by stopping the flow of antiAmerican ideas out of America. IMO in the case of antiAmerican movies and TV shows advertisers and businesses should boycott the people responsible for making them. And if we can't change their minds by controlling the information we still have the most powerful military in the world |
| Quote: |
| Hollywood is definately a problem when it comes to sowing the seeds of anti Americanism around the world, but the bigger problem is the LIBERAL MEDIA. Like he said right now the media is spreading the stories about the CIA around the world. This is just dirty muckraking like gopher said, and it should stay in the past. It was the same for abu ghraib, and I think the journalists who published the photos are borderline on treason. It's incredible that we're in the middle of a war but the media is still allowing to say anything they like irregardless of the consequences. There are some responsible journalists who think carefully about the type of things they cover (i.e. Bill O'Reilly) and I think FoxNews probably has the right kind of philosophy about this. The other ones should make some voluntary standards for not passing on news about America that can be misunderstood or twisted by the antiAmerican crowd. If the problem continues maybe the government could do something under the war laws, because ultimately it helps the terrorists which is treason. |
When I read this, it sounds like this particular poster would strongly prefer to see the U.S. adopt a North Korean approach to governing its people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mindmetoo wrote: |
| So you have no definition beyond "anti-Americanism is what I feel is anti-Americanism"? |
This is going nowhere, Mindmetoo. I cede the issue and the thread.
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Obviously... |
Let me stop you right there, Tiger Beer. This is something you should have taken up directly with this other poster.
Also, I ceded the issue to you. Perhaps you might at least read that post. It is approximately five or six lines above these words. In any case, further discussion is moot. Go back to taking the trolls at face value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Respiration contributes to the growth of cancer but it also contributes to our life and happiness. |
So what? Respiration, unlike filmmaking, is an unconcsious, involuntary, biological mechanism.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Did you ever give your definition of anti-American? |
No. Kuros's response is fine with me. (See p. 4) And, on top of that, I have listed multiple examples on two threads now, from a far leftist writer who outed hundreds of CIA officers hoping they would be forced to quit or be killed, and who has worked with the Cuban govt for decades to "educate" Latin American and Caribbean readers on America's worse-than-the-Nazis foreign policy, lying on such facts as Salvador Allende's "assassination," to a Hollywood filmmaker or two who often exceed the evidence to ensure audiences will see the American govt as the most sinister of bad guys... |
So you have no definition beyond "anti-Americanism is what I feel is anti-Americanism"? |
That's not exactly what I said, as I further explicated an example of what is anti-Americanism.
| Earlier, Kuros wrote: |
| Moore had openly declared that Americans 'are possibly the dumbest people on the planet.' |
Calling Americans 'the dumbest people on the planet,' is an example of anti-Americanism. I'm not going to insult Canada to drive the point home, but surely you can think of some instances, on this board even, of blatant anti-Canada/Canadian sentiment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| OK, "some [unnamed] Americans on this board" have called for silencing Hollywood and eliminating all forms of free speech. News to me. But I will take your word for it, even if I have a very hard time with it. I imagine someone must have said this in seriousness and you witnessed it. |
I didn't say that Tiger Beer had said that Americans on this board are calling silencing Hollywood. I said that he claimed that some Americans have called for eliminating all forms of free speech.
I guess it's a technical exaggeration to say that they called for "eliminating all forms of free speech", since presumably they don't call for the elimination of their own free speech.
What Tiger wrote was...
| Quote: |
but I am not an American who thinks pro-American government and pro-American foreign policy propaganda should be made a practice and eliminate all forms of free speech and debating/thinking about issues as some of my fellow Americans on this thread seem eager to do.
|
So anyway. Off the top of my head, I have seen one regular poster on this board suggest that the Korean police should raid universities and arrest professors who make anti-American statements. I guess this isn't a call for "elimination of all free speech", since right-wingers would still maintain their rights under such a system. However, I don't know how far we really need to go in fine-tuning Tiger's statement. If someone said "Stalin tried to eliminate all forms of free speech", I don't think anyone would really feel obliged to jump forward and say that, well actually, that's not fair, because he did allow people to express apolitical or pro-communist views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
