Teacher Discussion Forums

How do you, personally, use the term "anti-American"?

Would asking a question like this be considered an anti-American act by most people?

"Why do American leaders who vow "never again" repeatedly fail to stop genocide?"

metal56 wrote:How do you, personally, use the term "anti-American"?

Would asking a question like this be considered an anti-American act by most people?

"Why do American leaders who vow "never again" repeatedly fail to stop genocide?"

I never know the underlying reason for your questions, Metal. Personally, I hardly ever use the phrase "anti-American" and certainly wouldn't use it for the question you have given. However, President Bush would no doubt have another opinion.... Is that "anti-American" of me?

Like Lorikeet, I avoid the term "anti-American" as I find it both vague and lazy. America is a continent; how can you be against a geographical feature?

If someone hates President Bush but loves listening to Green Day, or vice versa, does that make them pro- or anti-American? I would say neither. If you're pro-Bush, or anti-Bush (say), then those are the terms you should use. Anyone trying to dismiss, or promote, a particular viewpoint on the grounds that it, or the person holding the opinion, is "anti-American" is probably trying to avoid having a proper debate.

Lorikeet wrote:

metal56 wrote:How do you, personally, use the term "anti-American"?

Would asking a question like this be considered an anti-American act by most people?

"Why do American leaders who vow "never again" repeatedly fail to stop genocide?"

I never know the underlying reason for your questions, Metal. Personally, I hardly ever use the phrase "anti-American" and certainly wouldn't use it for the question you have given. However, President Bush would no doubt have another opinion.... Is that "anti-American" of me?

I never know the underlying reason for your questions,

Do you need to?

The quote above comes from the book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, by Samantha Power.

Below is the full review passage about the book. It was discussed on a certain language forum and many Americans took offense to the topic of the book and its "revelations". The poster who posted the information about the book, a British man, was taken to task, dragged over the coals and labeled anti-American by most American members there. They also labeled the writer of that book as anti-American.



"During the three years (1993-1996) Samantha Power spent covering the grisly events in Bosnia and Srebrenica, she became increasingly frustrated with how little the United States was willing to do to counteract the genocide occurring there. After much research, she discovered a pattern: "The United States had never in its history intervened to stop genocide and had in fact rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred," she writes in this impressive book. Debunking the notion that U.S. leaders were unaware of the horrors as they were occurring against Armenians, Jews, Cambodians, Iraqi Kurds, Rwandan Tutsis, and Bosnians during the past century, Power discusses how much was known and when, and argues that much human suffering could have been alleviated through a greater effort by the U.S. She does not claim that the U.S. alone could have prevented such horrors, but does make a convincing case that even a modest effort would have had significant impact. Based on declassified information, private papers, and interviews with more than 300 American policymakers, Power makes it clear that a lack of political will was the most significant factor for this failure to intervene. Some courageous U.S. leaders did work to combat and call attention to ethnic cleansing as it occurred, but the vast majority of politicians and diplomats ignored the issue, as did the American public, leading Power to note that "no U.S. president has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrence. It is thus no coincidence that genocide rages on." This powerful book is a call to make such indifference a thing of the past. --Shawn Carkonen --"

Amazon.com

Thanks for the rest of the answer.

However, President Bush would no doubt have another opinion.... Is that "anti-American" of me?

To me, it wouldn't make you anti-American, no.

lolwhites wrote:

Anyone trying to dismiss, or promote, a particular viewpoint on the grounds that it, or the person holding the opinion, is "anti-American" is probably trying to avoid having a proper debate.

That right. I meet so many people these days who use that term the minute anything is said against American domestic and foreign poilicy through the ages. It's so frustrating.

Like Lorikeet, I avoid the term "anti-American" as I find it both vague and lazy. America is a continent; how can you be against a geographical feature?

"American" describes more that just a geographical feature.

metal56 wrote:

lorikeet wrote:I never know the underlying reason for your questions,

Do you need to?

I suppose not, but I don't enjoy being set up, if that is what occurs.

The quote above comes from the book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, by Samantha Power.

...many Americans took offense to the topic of the book and its "revelations".

Thank you for the full quotation. I think the author is correct; therefore I would certainly not label him "anti-american" for telling the truth, however unfortunate.

The quote above comes from the book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, by Samantha Power.

...many Americans took offense to the topic of the book and its "revelations".

Thank you for the full quotation. I think the author is correct; therefore I would certainly not label him her" anti-American" for telling the truth, however unfortunate.[/quote]

OK, thanks.

Yeah sorry, I thought I wrote him/her and I was too lazy to look. Oh well.

I meet so many people these days who use that term the minute anything is said against American domestic and foreign poilicy through the ages.

I couldn't agree more. Anti-American: what this basically is is a statement by the speaker/writer that I am American; therefore, I believe My country and myself must be right. Does this strike anyone else as a somewhat ethnocentric view?

It is noticeable that there seems to be an inverse correlation between the reasonableness and openmindedness of the American and the amount of times they use the expression "anti American". I might add that to take things to extremes, I have had a couple of idiots describe the anti Iraq invasion protests in the UK (I am British) as anti-American. I find this kind of attitude unbelieveable. Being British, I feel British people have the right to protest if their government commits our armed forces to a war the people do not believe in. The fact that this kind of anti-American spewing idiot feels they have the right to try and bypass our democracy in this way is quite frankly highly offensive. I find reading a book or the paper while they're talking to me a good way to shut them up, and it also has the secondary positive effect of annoying them.

I should make very clear that this is only some not all Americans. America is, afterall, a big place with a large population.

America is a continent; how can you be against a geographical feature?

I think here you have to allow for the figurative and not the literal meaning. "America" has become a symbol for many things and to be pro- or anti- American is to be for or against what you perceive America to symbolise.

Another issue for me is the way W. uses 'freedom' in every sentence and 'tarrism' in every other (sorry, am I showing my bias here?). This to me seems like such a worn out trick, but I guess it still works.

Here in Malaysia, we have similar things; the keywords to get the people's attention are development, and Islam.



my site: www.roadtogrammar.com

stephen wrote:

I meet so many people these days who use that term the minute anything is said against American domestic and foreign poilicy through the ages.

I couldn't agree more. Anti-American: what this basically is is a statement by the speaker/writer that I am American; therefore, I believe My country and myself must be right. Does this strike anyone else as a somewhat ethnocentric view?

It is noticeable that there seems to be an inverse correlation between the reasonableness and openmindedness of the American and the amount of times they use the expression "anti American". I might add that to take things to extremes, I have had a couple of idiots describe the anti Iraq invasion protests in the UK (I am British) as anti-American. I find this kind of attitude unbelieveable. Being British, I feel British people have the right to protest if their government commits our armed forces to a war the people do not believe in. The fact that this kind of anti-American spewing idiot feels they have the right to try and bypass our democracy in this way is quite frankly highly offensive. I find reading a book or the paper while they're talking to me a good way to shut them up, and it also has the secondary positive effect of annoying them.

I should make very clear that this is only some not all Americans. America is, afterall, a big place with a large population.

I agree with all you've said there.

You might find this entertaining:

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles ... /18mial.tx

emile wrote:

America is a continent; how can you be against a geographical feature?

I think here you have to allow for the figurative and not the literal meaning. "America" has become a symbol for many things and to be pro- or anti- American is to be for or against what you perceive America to symbolise.

Another issue for me is the way W. uses 'freedom' in every sentence and 'tarrism' in every other (sorry, am I showing my bias here?). This to me seems like such a worn out trick, but I guess it still works.

Here in Malaysia, we have similar things; the keywords to get the people's attention are development, and Islam.



my site: www.roadtogrammar.com

Great reply! Like the grammar site.

Metal 56

Thanks for the link. The content is to depressing to be amusing. The paranoia that is stirred up by this kind of thinking is a key to preventing reasoned thought. I mean, of course, the kind of thinking the paranoia machine in the media creates as opposed to the researchers quoted although the stuff from the economist was a fine piece of satire. But in general, I find the effect of the "free press" a bit reminiscent of the effect of the sheep in Animal Farm.

I've enjoyed reading the comments here.

I use the term "anti-American" in sentences like
"Is that another anti-American riot they're showing on CNN? Could you please switch it to Gilmore Girls?"

Is there a teaching point to this discussion?

I would hate to see this forum becoming a political blog.