At Stardate 20030620.2036, Jan Coffey wrote:
> First, the "coming to the world's rescue" part. True, the US did play a > vital role in major conflicts in the last century. I'll take WW2 as an > example. Really, people in Europe *were* grateful that the US helped > liberate us from Nazi occupation. What we have a problem with is that the > case is often presented as if the US liberated Europe singlehandedly, > rather than as a member of an international coalition. Such an attitude > comes across as very arrogant.
I'm sorry, but that is the way it is. If you remove the US from the equation in WW2 then the Nazis would still have been in power, probably even today. You can not say that about any other country but Germany.
There is of course no way to tell if the Nazis would still be in power today if the US had stayed out of the conflict -- but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. :-)
Yes, the US was a key player in the liberation of Europe; that's why I said earlier that they played a *vital* role. However, that doesn't mean that the US went in alone; many soldiers of other countries (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, to name a few) were there with you. And just like their American counterparts, many of them died here. You wouldn't want to deny them their rightful share of the glory, would you?
Us Europeans will readily acknowledge that the US was of vital importance in the liberation of Europe. What causes resentment is that, when discussing this with Americans, the role of other countries' forces tends to get ignored or at best considered inconsequential.
Our boys gave their lives to liberate Europe. We didn't have to do that. We could have taken Asia and left Euorpe to the Germans. The offer was certianly there.
IIRC, that was in fact the initial plan. The US wanted to stay out of the war completely, and only got involved when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. If that hadn't happened, maybe the US would have never gotten involved.
It supprises me what shabby historians, especialy war historians Europeans seem to be.
Giving credit to other countries as well, rather than only to the US, doesn't make Europeans "shabby war historians".
> Second, the "big dog" part. The US, being the only remaining superpower, > can pretty much do as it pleases in the world and appears to be happily > taking advantage of that situation.
How do you mean? Give specifics. Cold War plots don't count that was after all a war.
Bailing out of international treaties. Refusing to sign international treaties that most other countries did sign. Refusing to recognise the International Criminal Court. Insisting on launching a war against Iraq even though the international community didn't think it was a good idea. Willingness to ignore Security Council Resolutions if the outcome doesn't suit US interests.
> Such behaviour is a recipe for resentment by the rest of the world. > Basically, by doing whatever it wants and ignoring the wishes of the rest > of the world,
Once again you have to give specifics, otherwise it is just retoric.
Iraq. The US wanted war, the rest of the world wanted more inspections. It took an enormous amount of effort before the US finally reluctantly agreed to let inspections continue.
> the US is seen as the bully of the playground. Phrased differently: with > great power comes great responsibility, but the US is often seen as > interested only in the power and not the responsibility.
Where have we been lax in the area of responsibility. Really? give an example.
The US has refused to sign a number of treaties which were aimed at protection of the environment.
> In that respect, the current US government has probably done more damage > damage in the last three years than the combined previous US governments > have done since WW2.
What damage? It may seem like it is a given to you, but as an American, I have no idea what you are talking about.
America's behaviour in the international community has done great damage to its reputation and to the trust the rest of the world has in the US. Especially America's attitude of "we'll do whatever we want, with or without you" during the pre-war Iraq debates, and the "if you're not with us, you're against us" rhetoric hasn't exactly gone down very well with the rest of the world.
We all live on the same planet, and we all need to work together to prevent it from going to hell. Unfortunately, we cannot trust the US to behave like a team player, not while it continues to put its own interests ahead of global interests.
We are, once again, the leaning the world, making a difference. We are given a new fight, a new burdon of terorrism and we are willingly taking it. We could after all close up and let others in the world deal with the terrorism themselves.
Er, that *is* what we've been doing. There has been no noteworthy US involvement in dealing with some *four decades* of terrorism in Europe.
> Third, individual behaviour. It's not just the current US government that > generates a lot of resentment in others, some very vocal individual > Americans do it as well.
>FREX ? "for example"???
If you've been keeping up with That Other List in the last few years, you should be able to come up with some names. I've deliberately not given names, because those individuals are not subscribed to this list and therefore unable to present their own POV here.
> when you discuss WW2 with a number of Americans, there will always be > some among them who will make it sound as if the US singlehandedly > liberated Europe rather than as member of a coalition, which comes across > as awfully arrogant.
Sorry that is the way it happened. Yo umay not like it but them are the facts. Prove me wrong. Which Norwegan devision was it that liberated Italy? Who was the greate Spanish general? What paratrooping Sweeds faught the Germans and French from behind enemy lines to allow the D-Day invasion to take place? Name one. Every major battle, every major blood letting? Who was there? What took place?
Battle of Britain. Major air battle. Who where there: the British RAF vs. the German Luftwaffe.
> Other behaviour includes endless praise of the US as "the greatest > country in the world" (which can become quite annoying when you hear it > often enough)
I am sure it does, but is it not true?
Nope. Not in my opinion, anyway.
[TOURISM ISSUE]
Remember, we don't get a lesson in other countries when we turn on our tvs we don't know what to expect.
The argument "we don't know what to expect" is just an easy way out. Before you travel abroad, buy (and read!) some travel guides about your destination (I wholeheartedly recommend the Lonely Planet travel books) and do some research on the Internet. Further, if you happen to know people in the country you're going to, ask them about what to expect.
Travelling abroad boils down to two simple rules:
1. Before you leave: prepare yourself! 2. Once you get there: "when in Rome, act like the Romans".
And it never hurts to learn a few words in the local language. You'd be surprised how much it is appreciated if you can say "good morning", "please" and "thank you" in the local language.
we are use to certain norms. In the us a 5 star hotel means you are taken care of, in evey other coutry (excluding canada and Austrailia) 5 star means they actualy changed the sheets on the bed. Then we get chaged 2 or even 3 times as much for the same stuff. For an american that is someting to get bent out of shape about.
Have you ever actually been in 5-star hotels abroad, or is this only rhetoric? I can assure you that when you stay in a 4-star or 5-star hotel over here in Europe, you'll be pampered and looked after 24 hours per day (as it should be, given what they charge for a room).
I've been in 3-star hotels in Thailand and couldn't find anything to complain about. And in the 4-star and 5-star hotels in Thailand where I have stayed, you are almost treated like royalty (not *as* royalty, because Thai royalty has demi-God status, but still).
Besides have you ever been here? Try comeing to New York some time and watch peoples interactions. It is no different than how Americans interact abroad.
I've not been to the US (yet), but I've been to several other countries. Each and every time I've found that those two simple rules I mentioned above make a world of difference. Try to blend in, rather than stand out.
Sonja and I noticed this particularly in Thailand when observing people who didn't try to blend in. Sure, they were still treated like honored guests, but we noticed that we tended to get just that little bit of faster and extra service, a tad bit more friendliness. And all we really did was behave like the Thai themselves and learn a few basic words and phrases in Thai.
Ok, then there are the less educated or poorer people who, unlike those of other countryies , actualy save their whole life to go to visit France or some other place. They have looked forward to it for all of their lives, watching all the comercials on TV of people welcoming them to come and visit their cities. And telling them how welcome they will be. Then when they actualy get to go they get treated like crap. Well, such a person is likely to feel ripped off. Not only is their money and vacation being ruined, but the years of anticipation seem wasted.
Er, you're not telling me that the only preparation an American does for a foreign vacation is *watching commercials*, are you? It really takes a bit more effort than *that*! :-)
> and that most Americans don't expect Europe to forever be America's yes- > man as payment for the liberation.
Absolutly. We don't expect anything,
Maybe not as a people, but I know some individual Americans who disagree with you.
but some acknowledgement that the way it was was actualy the way it was would be nice.
But why would we acknowledge that the US singlehandedly liberated Europe, when we know that you did *not* do it alone, but led an international coalition? By acknowledging that the US singlehandedly liberated Europe, we'd be insulting all those non-Americans who fought by your side.
The fact is we are an arrogant bunch, but we are not inapropriatly arrogant. We don't believe in lies about oursleves or some such malarky. We are open to other cultures and in fact are made up of people from everywher in the world.
We are the world culture becouse of it. We are the culture you get when you mix every other culture together.
There must be other factors at play as well. Dutch culture for example is different from US culture, yet there are people of pretty much every nationality living in this country -- and they all brought their own cultures with them into the colourful mix that is Dutch society.
And we do recognize the difference between critisizm and "anti-americanism".
Sadly, my experience with that is quite different. :-(
> I think that most people who are labeled "anti-American" are not > anti-American at all; they merely provide healthy criticism.
Maybe you are somehwat correct, but this is usualy based on actions not words.
Such as? The accusations of me being anti-American have always been solely based on words, not on actions.
Ok food for thought. Lets see where this leads. It is an interesting conversation.
Just be careful where you tread along this path. Earlier discussions on this topic have shown that it's easy to step on someone's toes, even unintentionally.
Jeroen van Baardwijk
_________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
[Sponsored by:] _____________________________________________________________________________ The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
