Jeroen's criticism was off the mark, but the statement does deserve
criticism, I think. It portrays others' criticism as disconnected from
reality, based solely on an internal problem. I'm not sure if Guatam means
internal to nations or internal to individuals, but either way, this says
that the criticism has no basis in external facts.
How can discussion be fruitful when one of the parties labels the others'
arguments as disconnected from reality? It is an ad hominem argument, to
be
sure.
Nick
Me:
Are you suggesting that all critics of the United State are fair critics?
I almost think you believe that, but that's probably an uncharitable
reading of your posts. The arguments that many criticisms of the United
States are motivated by things other than the justice of morality of the
American position puts me in the company of such fervent American
nationalists as Tony Blair, who told a meeting of his _own_ party that the
reaction to September 11th of some of the people in the room revealed an
ardent anti-Americanism that shamed them. I assume you don't think that
the column in The Guardian published, I believe, less than a week after
September 11th that stated - I paraphrase, but _extremely closely, within a
word or two - if you've always hated the United States, it's okay to go on
hating it - I assume that you don't think that criticism is based on a true
reading of the facts. Let me repeat and elaborate on my statement - many
in Europe in particular, but in many parts of the rest of the world as
well, hate the United States as they hated the Jews not that long ago - and
indeed many of those same people still hate Jews, and do so for the same
reasons. Anti-Americanism is acceptable in polite society in Europe (and,
before Jeroen calls me on it, I've been to Europe many times) as
anti-Semitism is not (although it is becoming _more_ acceptable, as various
British newspapers have been chronicling recently). Indeed, it is not
surprising that the most enthusiastically anti-American parts of the
European political spectrum are the far left and the far right - the same
groups who were so virulently anti-Semitic in the past. If you want to
deny the reality of that go right ahead, Nick, but I'll stick to my
contention that if the United States allows its actions to be constrained
by fear of the criticism of the significant number of people whose major
objection to the US is its _existence_, then it is acting foolishly. If
Tony Blair differs with the US, I'll take him seriously. If The Guardian
and Le Monde do, that's usually a sign that we're doing something right.
Oh yes, one more thing. It was not an ad hominem argument at all. If
Jeroen feels that he resembles those remarks - well, that's his decision.
I was careful not to name him. But unless you feel like rebutting my post
with an actual argument, not just an assertion that my statements (grounded
in significant factual support, most strikingly an article that I posted a
link to, and that are quite synonymous with the statements of a large
number of European and American commentators from across the political
spectrum) are an ad hominem attack, I wonder why you felt it necessary to
respond in such a fashion.
Gautam
