Clive Davis, writing for TCS last week, has some sad news for his American friends:
Mrs. Miniver is dead. The funeral was held some time ago, and there were not many mourners in attendance.
Mrs. Miniver being a character in a Hollywood film that represented all that was best about war-time Britain and Middle England. Looking beyond the pageantry of the Anglosphere, a different picture emerges:
Immediately after 9/11, much was made of such ceremonial gestures as the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” at the Changing of the Guard. Dig a little deeper, though, and there’s no mistaking the hostility to American values among large sections of the British population. Conservative commentators in the US have got plenty of mileage out of jibes at French anti-Americanism; the unpleasant truth is that Britain is home to a similar phenomenon.
Why the hostility? When did this happen and why? My experience supports Clive’s view to some extent. Although I tend to move in circles where America may be criticised for some things but respected for many of its qualities, I am often taken aback by latent anti-Americanism when talking to people outside those circles. The most annoying thing about such attitude is that it is emotive, not based on anything other than some misplaced zen-like view of the world. Well, you know, there should be some counter-balance to the US power… . As Clive quite rightly notes it is a potent mix of ignorance and arrogance that feeds the Middle England’s political cosmology. (Or shall I say astrology…)
Perhaps as a consequence of all those hours spent sighing over Hugh Grant, Americans tend to assume that British are much more worldly and sophisticated than they really are. The truth is, when it comes to knowledge of American history and institutions, the Brits are woefully uninformed. What they are familiar with is American popular culture, which is – as I don’t need to remind you – a different thing all together. The result of that false sense of familiarity is a toxic combination of ignorance and arrogance. Besides, the British middle classes (like many of their counterparts in the US) do not necessarily see American popular culture as an unmitigated force for good. As the cultural critic Martha Bayles observes in an essay on public diplomacy in the latest edition of the Wilson Quarterly: “Popular culture is no longer ‘America’s secret weapon.’ On the contrary, it is a tsunami by which others feel engulfed. ”
Indeed, the thing that seems to gall the British chattering classes and, at the same time, helps them maintain their sense of superiority is the impression that Americans are, oh so, stupid. I find myself replying with increasing frequency that in a country where people are free to be as triumpantly stupid, it also means that they are free to be triumphantly creative and innovative.
Update: Clive posted comments emailed by readers of the TCS article on his blog.
The anti_Americanism is easy to explain.
Long before America was the “great satan” to the ayatollas, it was the great satan to all the communists, progressives, tranzis. America was the symbol of capitalism and imperialism – the embodyment of Satan. They stood in the way of “progressive” forces who wanted to subvert and conquer country after country for communism. The whole world was subject to a relentless 50 yreas + campaign of propaganda from the Soviet block and it’s followers in the West. “Yankee go home !” …
And now the “good” work is carried on by the Islamists and their sympathizers (Galloway, Fisk, Moore, etc.)
Paul Johnson mentioned in a recent essay, that anti-Americanism is akin to anti-semitism in it’s irrationality. It’s something that won’t disappear.
Seems the problem in Britain isn’t that it has turned anti-American, it is that it had turned tranzi – this pseudo ideology, step child of Marxism, has become dominant in great strata of British society.
One of Clive Davis’ comments was about Will Farish as an incompetent US ambassador to Britain.
He evidently didn’t connect with the British public (or even try to). Ambassadorships are often political gifts, and someone with a lot of money and little talent sometimes gets the assignment. Sadly, it was around 9-11 when he “served” in England.
Farish is a successful thoroughbred horse breeder, so maybe somebody in Washington thought he’d be able to talk with the Queen.
I think the disconnect has something to do with Fallen Empire Syndrome that is running through the English generations. Perhaps the Brits have troubles accepting that America is the new big man on campus and there are lingering beliefs over the superiority of the Pax Britannica model. Pax Britannica was done on the cheap – the Brits were more often than not quite cunning and intelligent in divide and rule strategies, and they managed to spread their military forces quite thinly over their once-enormous dominion. Americans, when in full force, show considerably less subtlety. Perhaps some of the crusty old Empire men in the Establishment see American hard power as not quite cricket.
Also, the chattering classes of Britain seem to be stricken with the European anti-military syndrome outlined by Robert Kagan – Europe believes it has entered this wonderful new phase where it doesn’t need military strength to solve even its gravest problems. Diplomacy and soft power will do. Kagan exposes the hypocrisy of this position by pointing out that the brave new world the Euros have discovered can only exist under the umbrella of American military dominance and protection.
I also think that some elements of British society view American culture with a disdain that is similar in genus – though much less profound – of that exhibited by the French towards Anglo culture in general; namely, an inferiority complex is involved.
I agree that a lot of Anti feeling is due to the lurking socialism that permeates much of our society but having said that there are many features of the USA that are a cause for genuine resentment:
The support especially financial by hundreds and thousands of Americans for the terrorist IRA; you can still get quite aggressive rejoinders if this subject is brought up.
The view of most Americans of foreigners especially the British formed by Hollywood especially those of Mel Gibson.
The failure to give credit to any non American for any achievement – most Americans think only their forces ‘won the war’ etc etc.
Their abuse of our language is tending to reduce it to a sort of ‘pidgin’ faster than our own natives can do it.
Just as an example of really appalling insularity:
I was in the main Hong Kong post office near the Star Ferry terminal waiting behind a group of elderly American ladies from a tour ship who were trying to buy stamps for their post cards. Having been given the stamps there was loud cry of protest “I don’t want foreign stamps I want American stamps for posting!”
Having said all that I’m not ‘anti’, go there frequently and have many friends there. But I am irritated quite often.
John Rippengal – you’re right, the Americans aren’t particularly humble in their superpowerdom. This would be particularly galling to a former superpower such as Britain. Distate is compounded by the traditional traits of Britishness – understatement, refinement and emotional neutrality.
Well James, you are also quite right. The ‘fallen Empire syndrome’ does I suppose colour many opinions of the US especially ‘crusty Empire’ types like me. Contrary to what you say the British were able to maintain the Empire not by cunning divide and rule policies but by providing good government, the rule of law, and virtually no corruption. If anyone, even in the USA thinks that British rule of India was not absolute paradise compared to the Mogul Emperors they need their head examined. Abitrary absolute power over life and death frequently exploited is not a regime anyone would like to live under. I’m sure you don’t believe it but we were by and large liked and respected by most of the population although not by political activists.
As for what the crusty Empire types think about the wielding of American power it is not a question of ‘not cricket’ but more a question of bombastic arrogance and incompetence. It’s a sure fire way of getting disliked.
I’m British and I always find it bizarre when supposedly liberal people, who normally go to great lengths to ostracise racist language and stereotypes, wholeheartedly embrace anti-Americanism, using generalisations against Americans in the same way that racists do i.e. all Americans are homogenous rednecks. It seems that the leftist mantra in Blighty is that ‘everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others’.
The revelation that a significant percentage of Britons feel negatively towards Americans is not really news to Americans, anymore. There’s a philosophical acceptance that that’s the way it is. America is far more concerned with China than Europe now, anyway.
However, I flew from London to Florida, just a few weeks ago. None of the happy Brits on the chock full plane seemed particularly scathing in their rejection of American culture. The exclamations of the children looking out the windows at the number of swimming pools and the signature big, yellow school buses seemed anything but.
There’s always going to be a certain degree of insularity and ignorance on both sides. When I lived in London, a neighbor who was being transferred to San Diego for a year asked me whether he could live in L A and commute.
While waiting to check in at his hotel in Warsaw, my ex husband overheard the American tourist in front of him ask whether it was safe to walk around the area. He said that he had noticed some vagrants around a bonfire, nearby.
“No, sir, those are guards around the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.”
When my ex got to the desk, he asked the clerk, “How do you stand that?” She just shrugged and said, “We need the money.”
I think that sentiment sums up how most countries deal with one another. We can choose to gather our skirts and flounce off in a huff or we can continue to trade and do business; holding our noses to whatever extent, while doing so. Those who choose the former end up like North Korea. In the end, commerce will sort these differences, to the extent that they are ever going to be, finally, sorted.
John Rippengal – I’m somewhat mystified by your hostile tone. You seem to have mistaken me for someone who is quite against British contributions to humanity, some of which you elucidated. I’m not at all. In fact, I believe the USA is the progeny of said contributions.
I agree, British rule in India bequeathed a number of advantageous gifts to that country that I think have yet to pay their full dividend. Having travelled quite extensively through that country, I can attest that a number of Indians feel similarly.
However, I think that there were a number of outposts of the British empire that did not benefit from Britain’s fine institutions, and were indeed ruled rather more arbitrarily – especially in the twilight years of the Empire. By many credible accounts, “bombastic arrogance and incompetence” are fitting descriptions of the rule over a number of the Crown’s dominions. Why else would the Empire crumble?
It’s snobbery, pure and simple. Often by people with statist jobs or whose family was once great and ruling, but have descended to nothing. They once ruled over the land, but cannot facing being with the plebs, so they attack them.
America represents the free market that makes everything from WWF wrestling to Disney movies to McDonalds.
The people who often attack this culture have never themselves actually sat and watched a total gem like Toy Story 2 or Beauty and the Beast, but because it is of the masses, it must be rubbish, for they do not wish to be associated with them.
This is elitist art. Like having “Community Festivals” or state-funded opera.
Yes James you are right I should not have come over as so hostile. Just got carried away a bit. I was thinking of Iraq where the policy has not been exactly Andrew Carnegie and to some extent Vietnam (I spent quite a lot of time in and around there during the 60s)
An awful lot of fire power was misused and it all seemed so lacking in direction and purpose.
The Empire crumbled because of postwar bankruptcy, lack of political will and extraodinary pressure from US.
I’d be interested to know which bits of the Empire you consider poorly administered but it’s off topic so had better keep off that.
I also suspect one reason for the racism against Americans is despite their dominance in business and culture the chances of a Brit coming across an American tomorrow are pretty low. OK there are exceptions such as in the City and around some military installations. Tomorrow I will go to work and come across Australians , Dutch , Indians , Chinese and probably more but no Americans. This lack of personal contact seems to me to make racism more likely. If for instance I was to go into a pub tomorrow and shout my mouth off about how the Irish or Australians are to blame for the worlds propblems then the likelyhood of getting into an argument with or getting a punch in the face from one of those peoples would be high. But someone could say those things about an American and there would be little chance one would be there. I know this doesn’t excuse things but it does perhaps explain why this form of racism still exists.
Anti-Americanism probably springs from many different sources, varying from the strange idea they have “perverted” our language (when in fact they have preserved some older English words we have abandoned) to the idea they dragged us into a terrible war in Iraq.
It is also easy to blame them for their marketing drive and cultural influences. It is too easy to get wound up over McDonalds, American bases, the notion they are far too powerful and led by a fool (I doubt any US President is a fool, given the opposition they will have faced and had to win over) and of course the endless stream of TV shows.
I have been to the States a few times and like the people and their country. They have their share of ignorant people but so do all nations. They have a powerful army, but I imagine the Chinese have too if so far only in terms on men and women under arms.
We, as one of their founding influences, don’t like them sneering at us or failing to be grateful to us, but that’s life.
It isn’t hard to be critical of their wastefulness, or feeling they aren’t doing enough to protect us against global warming, if you accept the myth that human actions can solve it all entirely.
Persoanlly, I am irritated by the fact that the Brits have become the bad guys in many American films as Mexicans, native Americans and many other nationalities mustn’t be upset by stereotyping. But it gives work to British actors.
But for all their faults I think the USA is better with us than against us.
We have to look at ourselves for reasons of disliking people who are generally perceived to be richer and more “in tune” with a go-getting world. There are of course a lot of poor people in the US and not every commercial transaction of Americans works out well.
My conclusion is most anti-American feeling stems from a kind of jealousy.
” I am often taken aback by latent anti-Americanism when talking to people outside those circles.”
Extorting 2.8 Billion from UK citizens the BBC does a lot of damage.
What I have not seen mentioned in the Comments so far is the fact that a major American intellectual export is anti-Americanism. This is something, doubtless, helped by a corresponding anti-American import policy by big store book-buyers who (don’t blame them) feel that there is lack of demand for anything positive.
At the same time, pro-American Americans hardly bother with any sort of aggessive selling: periodicals with even a neutral, let alone a right-wing stance, have simply faded away from Borders Books here in Glasgow and the answers given at “Information” indicate that it’s the suppliers who aren’t sending them.
It is hardly paranoia to suggest that US academia is infested with headless marxists who have nothing left to propagate but gut anti-Americanism. They can’t quite bring themselves to support Islam, but they know one thing, as Seymour Hersch (sp?), to change personnel but not the agenda, “respected” reporter, has said, “America must lose.” And who does he think will win? Well, for a start, those who deeply despise him.
I have drawn attention to these people in a couple of my reviews, adding lists for their easy identification.
What I find so amazing about articles like this is the idea that it was ever any different. I realize that most of the people here are younger than I am, but surely there are still history courses taught somewhere that involve more than multi-culti nonsense and race/gender politics.
The reaction of the ruling classes and the intelligentsia to the United States was immediate and hostile, and has never relented. Those on the aristocratic right looked down their long, long noses and sniffed that we were mongrels who engaged in (shudder) commerce almost as a national religion.
Those on the collectivist left saw an entire culture built on individualism and (shudder) capitalism, and declared total war—a condition that has continued generation after generation, whether marxist or socialist or progressive or green.
For most of the last two centuries, in book after book, lecture after lecture, speech after speech, casual conversation after casual conversation, one theme has been pounded into the psyches of the world’s population—that evil, greedy, uncaring, imperialist, crude, arrogant American capitalists are coming to ruin your life, your culture, and your society.
Read the writings of the “socially” conscious critics of the 19th century. The avant garde of the early 20th. The thinkers, the artists, the writers who came back from seeing the “Future”, and wasted no time condemning everything American. Have you forgotten Russell? Shaw? There’s not enough bandwidth to list the whole chorus just from Britain, without even getting to the rest of Europe and Asia.
As late as the 1980’s, the wailing and screeching about the stupid, clumsy American leadership that was leading the whole world to disaster because of its belligerence towards the peace-loving USSR routinely filled the newscasts as thousands of marchers took to the streets to protest whatever terrible thing we had done, and support whatever position was held by our opponents.
Europe, and Britain, complain constantly that the US doesn’t listen enough to your wisdom and experience. But we watched, and were drawn in, as your wisdom and experience gave birth to three of the most virulent and monstrous tyrannies ever devised by man, which then proceeded to slaughter dozens of millions of people, following the leadership of some of the most deranged and murderous lunatics since Attilla the Hun.
The US never wanted to be in this position. As late as 12-6-41, we didn’t even want to get dragged into your latest civil war. Well, we did our part, and then we held off the other monstrosity for several decades until it finally imploded, all the while listening to “our betters” castigate us for standing in the way of the wave of the future.
Now our attention is directed elsewhere. Economically, toward Asia. Militarily, towards a foe which has declared war on us. We’re getting our troops out of Europe, where they aren’t wanted anyway, and restructuring for a prolonged and nasty conflict.
I happen to be an anglophile, and my wife and I are planning an extended trip to Europe, starting in London, as soon as it is possible. She has her own career we must plan around, even if I am now a kept man with time on my hands.
I plan to enjoy the trip, the sights, the food, and the people. But listen to the criticism, or pay attention to the advice of failed collectivists? No, sorry, not interested.
I was not aware ‘Americans’were a race, so anti-Americanism cannot be racism.
There are a hell of a lot of Brits in the US who I always seem to be running into over there whether I like it or not. Also rather a lot of them take holidays in Florida (during the summer… how daft is that?).
My suspision is that British anti-Americanism does not run nearly as deep as elsewhere once you get away from the chattering classes.
I am intrigued by the comments about Britain regretting loss of empire, or resenting America foe taking over what was Britains.
In 23 years living in the UK I came across one person, once, who bemoaned loss of empire. Most people were utterly oblivious to what Britain had once been. Only a few, a very few, had any real idea of Imperial history. Mention the Jameson Raid, Wolfe, the Riel Revolution or the Indian Mutiny and only one in two hundred will give anything other than a blank stare.
One day, visiting the Royal Geographical Society (the NASA of the 19th Century) someone mentioned a current RGS exhibition about an early British exhibition to Tibet and I said :What? The Younghusband Expedition? Can I see? ” This request was greeted with an openmouthed gape. My RGS host was shocked to have encountered someone who had heard of this.
No, I came across no such resentment. Ever.
1327 – as a prelude, let us continue to speak English and not talk of “racism” against a mainly Caucasian country. One can’t be a racist against one’s blood cousins. Do not adopt the ignorance the left. One can only be “racist” against a different race. Unless, of course, you were referring to black Americans …
Very retired – brilliant as always.
It is always, for some satanic reason, that the foetid left thrives in the damp, festering swamp of British “intellectual thought” (I know, I know; an oxymoron) especially and Europe by extension. But the virulence runs particularly through the arteries of the British left, which, as very retired says, “gave birth to three of the most virulent and monstrous tyrannies ever devised by man”. Why would Americans have any interest in opinions that they have instinctively known are toxic for at least a century?
It is jealousy, fury that they are irrelevant. The United States played its part in the downfall of Britain as Top Nation, yes, of course, but it has ever been thus in human life. A stronger, more vigorous nation came along, and thank god they were our cousins!
As so often, Jacob nails it.
Adriana, thank you for a fascinating post.
Just to violently burst the blood vessels of any lefties who have strayed onto this site (I regard this as a public service) I met Will Farrish and his wife on two or three occasions at their private polo club in Texas and they are charming, hospitable and good company.
My suspision is that British anti-Americanism does not run nearly as deep as elsewhere once you get away from the chattering classes.
Agreed. I think when people talk about a wave of anti-Americanism sweeping Britain itself, they reveal more about the company they keep than they give any accurate diagnosis of British opinion.
That’s a pretty damn arrogant remark to make, if you don’t mind my saying so – most people in Central London very likely encounter an American citizen on a day-to-day basis.
Regarding British “racism” to Americans I think that’s a media-inspired load of cock and bull. We have always had a very close relationship with the USA and nothing, not even the NORAID donations to the Provisional IRA in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, has ever stopped that. If anything I think that anyone in the USA should rightly feel aggrieved by Tony Blair and his despicable, corrupt spouse going over to the USA and trying to lecture Americans over human rights.
I would hazard a guess that any anti-American feeling in the UK could probably be tracked down to emanating from somewhere in either Highbury, Islington, Camden or Hampstead – Polly Toynbee, Duncan Campbell and Robert Fisk territory, in other words.
Well, I’d certainly describe many of our largest metropolitan areas that way, including the one next door to me (Dallas, TX).
That is, if one subscribes to genuine definitions of dysfunction and imperialism – in this case, the melange (a French word is appropriate here) of leftist politics that stifles freedom and self-reliance (except for criminals).
For some reason, something strikes me odd about a mass media monopoly that complains about imperialism…
Perhaps not explicitly, however certain behaviours and opinions run through the generations. For example, some people attribute loss of empire/greatness to British middle class insecurity which lead to the whingeing Pom tag. This is a character trait you can get off your parents. As is anti-Americanism.
I think Perry has a point, too – ordinary folk are probably not particularly anti-American – well, that’s the situation in Australia. A huge chunk of the ‘chattering classes’ and posing intelligensia are fashionably anti-American, the middle and professional classes far less so.
bombastic arrogance and incompetence
I don’t think Bush, Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan has had the bombastic arrogance of J. Chiraq. Nor the incompetence.
But America is not perfect — and despite being the richest, most freedom supporting, most militarily powerful, and, in most countries on Earth the Most Important other country, neither arrogance nor incompetence is ever measured by the anti-Americans.
The lack of measures is why it is more emotional than rational.
Because America is best, it is considered OK to judge it by “higher standards” — in fact, double standards. Every flaw is magnified to bring the Tall Poppy down.
It’s partly an Equality thing. Those who are superior must be brought down for equality purposes. Hating Bill Gates, even in America, has similar emotional sources. (I like Bill Gates — but still think gov’ts should convert to Linux and Open Source.)
It’s also a greater power, greater responsibilty thing. Because America IS strong, if something is wrong somewhere, it IS America’s fault; or it feels that way.
Many people lose their faith in God because evil exists — which must be God’s fault…
In fact, anger at God for an imperfect world, seems very similar to anger at America both for being imperfect and allowing the imperfections of the world.
Finally, there is a myth missing: of the Good Strong King fighting against weaker, but more evil bad-guys. Usually it is a good but weak king, if the hero is on the side of the king. Or it is the strong but not good king, and the hero is more on the other side.
A good, strong, king shouldn’t have enemies, implicitly.
Almost all myths and stories involve some underdog overcoming all the odds to achieve victory. Since WW II, America can’t be considered the underdog.
As somebody from the States, I feel guilty about all the Britons criticizing their own country. So I think I should take up the US’s responsibility in all this.
1. Bush Administration’s public diplomacy.
It’s every bit the disaster that Davis said. The US embassy should have spent more time engaging with the British public on the issue. Even if the effort failed, it would still show that Washington was solicitous of British opinion. That alone may yield good results.
2. IRA.
Every time when a Briton mentions funding by Irish-Americans of those terrorists, I feel like looking for a hole to hide in.
It’s disgraceful, to say the least. Other than offering some humble apologies, I don’t know what can be done here. For what it’s worth, the administration is taking a tougher line against the IRA.
3. Credits for British achievement.
This really goes under #1. It’s a failure of public diplomacy on the part of the Bush Administration. It should spent more time talking about the British contribution.
The “Loss of Empire” dog will not hunt,there are generations that don’t know Britain had an Empire,let’s face it there are kids out there who have never heard of the Beatles.The generation that were the last administrators of the Empire are mostly dead as are those who fought in WWII.
Public schools have not turned out the administrators of an imperial system for many decades.
Sorry, the term imperial is a moribund thinking tool of the left and sociologists,it never crosses anybody elses mind.
The “Loss of Empire” dog will not hunt,there are generations that don’t know Britain had an Empire,
Hear, hear. Well expressed.
Sorry, said it before, but the brits just don’t care. They just don’t give a hoot any more. Ulster is the only bit of Empire left, and the English don’t give a toss about it. Dear Leader is doing his best to indulge in the standard British decolonisation betrayal, regardless of how much the local majority want to remain British.
No, I have to go along with the view that the chattering classes are simply bigoted snobs on this one. Best summed up as a Democrat President is a sophisticate, a Republican Pres is a boob.
The most remarkable thing about this is how sensitive a small section of America is. A small section of the British fahionable left, and militant left, are anti-American for ’emotional’ reasons. A small section of the British radical left are anti-American because they are anti-capitalist – this stance is a reasonable one rather than an emotional one, although I don’t agree with it.
In both these cases, the antis do a better-than-average job of limiting their dislike to the US government rather than the US people. Compare this with the equally token and trivial US anti-French stance, which is aimed at the French people as much as it is at the French state.
The remarkable thing is how _upset_ some Americans get about it all. They really do think they are a nice country that defends what is good, and they just can’t see why people hate them for it. It’s charmingly naive at first, but then it’s tiresome. The Brits have never much liked overbearing righteous people, and just because those righteous people are _in the right_ doesn’t change that. Del Boy is preferrable to Flash Gordon.
It is lucky that the US is so good an limiting the power of its government, as it is so bad at electing decent people to it. I often think the US interferes so much in other peoples’ countries only because it gets so much resistance when it tries to interfere at home.
There are some slight splashes of pink left on the world map, namely Falkland Islands, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha, St. Helena, Bermuda, The Turks and Caicos, Christmas Island, Gibraltar and our biggest money-spinner – The Caymans. I understand that the Foreign Office here still maintains a Colonial Office as a department dedicated to managing affairs in those places.
I don’t think we ever considered Ulster as “Empire”; it has always been regarded as a part of the United KIngdom and not as a colony or dependency.
Julian,
True, although we are now getting off topic. Ulster has only been part of the UK since 1801, although it and the rest of Ireland, was an English posession for what? 600 years before that?
Although the home nation is now the United Kingdom, we can legitimately view the Empire as English, rather then British, so we can also view both Ulster and Scotland as Imperial posessions.
Of course, we can also view that last paragraph as a complete load of cobblers. In which case can I just say I was indulging in a bit of license so I could score a cheap point against Dear Leader?
Besides, there are two Christmas Islands. One is a constituent part of Kiribati, the other is a Dependent Territory of Australia. Sorry, no pink there.
I agree with those who suggest that most of the anti-Americanism is coming from the chattering classes and not the general public. I am guessing if we put Jim Bennett’s plan into practice allowing Anglosphere citizens to travel and live in each other’s countries there will be quite a few Britons heading to Florida and California to live. There are quite a few Britons living in Maine & New Hampshire as well I seem to find when I am back home.
And I think it would be hard not to meet an American in London these days…
Lots of interesting points here. Can I add a couple of points about my TCS article?
I was really talking about Middle Britain (or England, or whatever you want to call it). I always expect anti-Americanism from the metropolitan chattering classes – it’s part of their DNA. What really strikes me is how often I encounter it beyond the charmed circle, out in the suburbs and the Home Counties (where I live). I’d guess that 85 per cent of the people I’ve spoken to since 9/11 have displayed hostility or condescension towards Americans or Bush. I know the two are very different, but that’s not how the speakers seem to see things. The lower down the social scale you go, the less those feelings are apparent: there’s always a hint of the old “overpaid and over here” talk, but people who spend their summer holidays in Florida theme parks tend to have a grudging admiration for American openness and the traditional can-do spirit.
One factor I didn’t mention in the piece was American corporate culture. Whenever I have a conversation with businessmen or middle managers who work for US companies in the City and elsewhere, they invariably have harsh things to say about the way American staff treat their British and European colleagues. I don’t have any direct experience of that kind of business world, so I can’t say how accurate those comments are. But I hear them over and over again. Are the Brits just lazy, or are the Yanks overbearing? Maybe Samizdata readers have their own views on that.
I was born in Canada of wildly Anglophile parents and grew up in Bermuda (still one of the pink bits on the map) in the 1960s, so that meant I went to an English-style school and sat my 11-plus and my O-levels. My parents did not consider the local schools good enough for A-levels and sent me to a sixth-form college in Wales, from where I went to university in the UK and later, worked in the City. At every point I found that my (mild) transatlantic accent was met with a sneer until the listener realized I was Canadian, at which point the contempt turned to condescension. Weird. I finally decided that if all these unpleasant people so hated Americans there had to be some good in the USA after all, and moved to the US and became a citizen. I know that Britain has changed a lot since I was there in the 1960s and 1970s, but from time to time something in the UK press reminds me that the England that I came to know and loathe still exists, below the surface though it may now be.
J:
I don’t know if I’d agree with your contention that the anti-Americanism is aimed by and large at the government and not the people. Look at the stereotypical image of Americans as being SUV-driving, gun-toting fundy Christians.
I’d agree with the posters above who point out that such sentiments are more prevalent in the chattering classes (in the US as well as the UK!), but don’t underestimate the pernicious effect a 900-pound gorilla like the BBC has in trying to set the agenda.
I also think it is just a case of it being ‘fashionable’ to be anti-American. Its very trendy here in London to wear the trademark Che Guevara t-shirt, or the arab keffiyah and to magine yourself as a resistor, fighting for the rights of the underdog. Well, its not just the clothing that is trendy, but a whole world view, continuously reinforced by a left-liberal media which sees world events in terms of how America is somehow responsible (especially if the event is negative). However, I think that there is a possibility of this changing, as fashion changes every season and at some point it might be cool to be pro-American. This sounds unrealistic but people get bored of static paradigms in politics as much as in fashion.
I spent two years pondering the attitude of Londers toward Americans while I was living as an American housewife of a Brit. My conclusion was basically in agreement with the comment above, the “Fallen Empire Syndrome that is running through the English generations. Perhaps the Brits have troubles accepting that America is the new big man on campus…”
At least, that was the kindest thing I could allow myself to think of the British, who I had until that time always thought to be culturally far superior to Americans.
An underlying socialism probably plays a role as well, as does simple ignorance. A survey published during my time in London claimed that less than half of the British populace knew that America was a former British colony. Utterly amazing to me!
Finally, I just want to agree with Findlay’s comments regarding the American inellectual elite exporting anti-Americanism. In your average Chicago bookstore you will find competing bestsellers by pundits on the left and the right. In London, Sydney, and Montreal, all you will find is the Michael Moores and other extreme anti-American screeds. My assumption, though, when I see this, is that that’s what people there want to read. It makes me sad to think so, but it’s unavoidable.
Leslie Ash – I would disagree with the ex-Empire theory mainly for the reasons cited above. Many British today are unaware that they ever had a Empire as is has been exed out of instruction in state schools (by the socialists).
France has exactly the same sneering attitude, and the US was never governed by France. It has to do with thinking British (and to Francophones, French) culture is inherently superior, for some reason. They feel they are more subtle, have more nous.
The British view Americans as brash (hardly a new observation, I concede), but then America (and Australia) are young and vigorous and have more energy than the British and Europeans. They are busy building their countries. We are busy overseeing the dismantling of our own. It all has a strong whiff of wounded pride. Americans are capable of being every bit as subtle and focussed on the long game as the Brits. Articulate Americans are every bit as literate and witty as the best of British. American slang and catchphrases are endlessly inventive and attractive to the rest of the Anglosphere. Their TV comedies are, in the main, funnier than anyone else’s, and they’re slicker and more professionally produced, too.
The world loves American products. Who, any longer, would buy a product because it was produced in Britain?
It has nothing to do with Empire, but it is a problem of a society in decline that has no will to reinvigorate itself.
Perry: technically, you’re correct. But I know many anti-Americans who think of Americans as a distinct ethnic group, with a distinct stereotypical character, and treat them as such. That is functionally indistinguishable from racism, regardless of what you choose to call it.
J: this may be true strictly for the two cases you cited — I wouldn’t know. But I can tell you that the anti-Americanism I’m exposed to daily here in Canada is a broad-based dislike of the entire citizenry, which is viewed as, for all practical purposes, a distinct ethnic group.
Mary: I’ve perceived much the same thing here in Canada. My business puts me in contact with a lot of twenty- and thirty-something, technical, “white-collar” people, the majority of whom wear their anit-Americanism with great pride. They know all the pat reasons for it by heart but, when pressed, can’t even begin to defend any of them. For example, if you ask, “Which foreign policies, specifically, are wrong, and what would be the better alternatives,” most will admit that they have no idea. It’s just something they’ve been told.
(For the record, I’m not suggesting that there’s never anything wrong with U.S. foreign policy, nor that there aren’t people who can articulately critique it. I’m only saying that nearly everyone I encounter in the flesh — though not so much so on blogs — who uses that as a justification for their anti-Americanism is self-admittedly ignorant about the subject.)
Verity, you are right. Though I am still reluctant to call it simple jealousy, there is certainly a large element of that. It showed itself in the way Brits usually had to try to “one-up” me, as a representative of the U.S., by bringing up famous English people or quizzing me on history.
I also have heard all of the complaints John Rippengal cites, particularly the IRA funding. I also heard complaints about America’s unconditional backing of Israel…is that something anyone else has come across?
From the Tory side, though, I heard complaints that America wasn’t being ENOUGH of an imperial power…that while we have the military might we SHOULD make the world over in our image.
So many Brits hate Americans? Consider me indifferent.
The British military is choosing to go with a Eurocentric common defence policy, instead of a NATO-based one? Okay.
…and using European-designed weapons systems instead of American ones? Whatever.
Understand one thing, though: regardless of the merits (and I’m not going to get into that here), most Americans do feel as though they saved Britain’s ass from totalitarianism, twice, in the 20th century (yeah, got there late both times blah blah blah).
Like I said, it doesn’t matter whether that opinion is right or wrong, just as it doesn’t matter whether the belief is correct that America is intent on global hegmony and domination.
It’s a belief, and that’s it.
So just remember: every time that Britain does something which seems inimical to American interests, there’s a concomitant feeling of betrayal Over Here.
I’m not suggesting any solution, nor am I uttering some simplistic threat, either.
But the well of goodwill towards Britain is not limitless, and frankly, only your support for our Excellent Adventure In Iraq has stemmed that disaffection for a while.
Remember that if Argentina decides to retake the Malvinas, and your military can’t respond appropriately without American support.
Yeah, Britain has close ties with Europe. We have close ties with South America (not to mention a huge Spanish-speaking population), and that could easily be used to excuse a “neutral” or non-supportive stance towards your Excellent Adventure In The Falklands.
Let’s be blunt, here. Britain’s adherence to Europe makes no sense to us Americans. Their governments are corrupt, their social models are on the verge of collapse, and it should be plain to Britons too that British instutions based on those models (eg. the NHS) are a losing proposition.
So ascribe British anti-Americanism to whatever reason you wish: petulance, envy, anti-imperialism, whatever.
What it is, is inexplicable, especially when you consider what’s being touted (Eurocentrism) in its place.
It doesn’t matter. We’re all grownups here, and nation-states have the right to shape their own destinies.
So if Brits think that closer alliances with Europe make more sense than an “Anglospheric” alliance, that’s their prerogative.
Be aware, though, that a “bailout” from the wicked Uncle Sam may not be automatically assumed in the future.
THAT would be a foolish assumption indeed.
–The support especially financial by hundreds and thousands of Americans for the terrorist IRA; you can still get quite aggressive rejoinders if this subject is brought up.–
I wasn’t aware African-Americans, Indian-Americans, Native Americans Chinese-Americans, Hispanic Americans supported the IRA.
I thought it was Irish-Americans.
—–
Anti-Americanism has always been even before we were Americans, read French Anti-Americanism by Philippe Roger. Started out of the box by guess who?
And do some feel we took your birthright away?
We’re the only country it’s “safe” to tell us that you hate us, we’re not really going to pay attention until well, say planes are driven into buildings.
Well said, Kim!
Considering how profligate Britain has been with the freedom only made possible by America’s military help – twice – I would sincerely hope that the next time Britain needs assistance, America would have its voice mail on.
America cannot be responsible for the lack of sanity in others. Joining “European defence” – surely the Oxymoron of The Day? – is suicidal. If they want to do it, fine. The Europeans, needless to say, are such masters of suasion and reason that they need no physical defence, which is just as well, because they haven’t got any. The Islamics are going to be overcome with admiration of their logic and the lucidity of their arguments. Give me a break!
Leslie, I think the resentment of America’s support of Israel runs in the veins of the chattering classes – in which, of course, I include the BBC – but the average Brit is too ignorant to know about it. If it didn’t happen on Big Brother, Saturday night sports or a makeover show, it would not have impinged on what we compassionately refer to as their “consciousness”.
Unfortunately the swaggering ignorance of Mr du Toit is the attitude that excites dislike and worse. If like me you know the US and many of its people then you know it is a sort of surface froth and should not be taken too seriously.
The US of course entered the war in Europe not for any altruistic reason but as all nations should only to protect its own interests. Roosevelt could see that otherwise there was a near certainty that the whole of western Europe would become either dominated by the Nazis or by the Soviets. The destruction of the German war machine was probably 80 percent by the Soviets and 20 percent by the British/Commonwealth and Americans in equal measure.
Likewise in the Far East the major Japanese land forces which were in Burma and south were defeated solely by the BritishCommonwealth forces although many Americans think it was Errol Flynn and some of his buddies.
Kim du Toit writes:
” Britain’s adherence to Europe makes no sense to us Americans. ”
If that is the case, why has it been the consistent policy of the US State Department since the last war to encourage it?
G Cooper is correct. The United States, for at least 30 years, pushed for a closer British union with Europe. Of course, this had to do with the USSR, but State is no more competent than the Home Office and they are still pushing it despite the threat having evaporated.
From veiled references in speeches by Condoleezza Rice, she is an advocate herself, although she plays it down. I think George Bush likes Britain and doesn’t give a hoot about Europe, now the USSR has gone. But from the clues I have picked up of the thinking of Rice, I no longer hope she runs in ’08. I think she would be dangerous for Britain.
GCooper,
For the last 80-odd years -and they have been very odd ones- the US State Department has pushed the “stability at any cost” mantra to anyone who will listen.
If that meant advising you to cozy up to your neighborhood dictator (but, definitely NOT a right-wing one) then that is the path you must follow to bring about peace and stability.
As we speak, Condoleeza Rice is cleaning house at State, to sweep out the many dinosaur bureaucrats who have been giving such ludicrous advice, and on the public dole.
And we should not forgot who was Condoleezza Rice’s tutor.
Lets go though the things in the messages on this thread that could be construed as encouraging anti-Americanism:
– Repeated accusations that Britian is a socialist country and America is some shining example of Capitalism.
R-Britain scores higher on economic freedom rankings than America and has done so for many years now.
-The quote “As late as 12-6-41, we didn’t even want to get dragged into your latest civil war”
R- WWII wasn’t a civil war! It was a war between fully sovereign nations + Europe starts at the other side of the channel.
– The quote “if Argentina decides to retake the Malvinas”
R- It’s not called that, it’s called the Falkland Islands, if Argentina try to invade again we will slap them down again.
The whole tone of the original message and messages on this thread seem to imply that anti-Americanism is at historically unprecidented levels, which is of course historically inaccurate. Britain was the original anti-USA country, when the USA was formed the first thing Britain did was try to retake it. Anti-USA feeling has lessened since then.
Suez. Ponder that and then realise that most British folks, whilst having more affinity for the US than Europe, feel no undying sence of gratitude to the US either… and don’t get me started on NORAID.
Della, you had to call in Colin Powell to settle a spat w/Spain over was it Gibralter?
–2. IRA.
Every time when a Briton mentions funding by Irish-Americans of those terrorists, I feel like looking for a hole to hide in.–
Or,
You could innocently ask w/a mischievious look in your eye, “Why do the Irish hate you?”
Or
Maybe you should look to “root causes.”
Then just pat them on the shoulder and say “Touche.”
And funny Canada is mentioned, via Bros. Judd:
Canadians won’t give Americans time of day
…If Canada does not match the change, the time difference is expected to complicate things for business. But John Wright, senior vice-president at Ipsos-Reid, said the poll suggests Canadians are thinking beyond commerce.
“We may have a bit of pro-Canadianism here,” he said, adding Canadians may see the decision less as a North American move to save energy and more as a unilateral one bearing the fingerprints of the Bush administration.
“It’s again seen as something that, unilaterally, is undertaken with no consideration given to other countries which may be affected by it,” Mr. Wright said.
The release of the poll yesterday coincided with the wrap-up of the premiers’ annual conference in Banff, Alta. Daylight saving time is the responsibility of the provinces, which differ on how to approach it….
But almost all of us were aware as we were growing up that Britain used to be top dog but now it’s all America, America, America, every time you turn on the TV. This does play a role in creating a kind of petty resentment of the US and taking great delight in getting one up on them. I felt it myself but I’d like to think I got over it by the time I reached my twenties – alas some never do. Much of the French resentment towards the Angloshere is similarly motivated. But it’s only one reason for anti-Americanism and not the primary one. Let’s face it nobody like #1. When you are as prominent as the US is, in virtually every sphere, people are going to notice you and your faults.
Nobody outside of the US (including most Irish Catholics) considers Americans of Irish background to be Irish. They are Americans as were many of the politicians of ethnic backgrounds who gave comfort to the IRA – Congressman Charlie Rangel (black) comes to mind. Of course, English politicians weren’t much better and for the most part did nothing to resist American interference in Northern Ireland. The current (elected) mayor of London was always quite a fan of Sinn Fein/IRA so Londoners who voted for him are in no position to complain about NORAID.
Kim du Toit’s post perfectly illustrates the ignorance and prejudice which makes people in one country anti-another and which takes the place of rational and constructive comment.
The US contribution to the first world war was highly significant, but no historian would agree that it was the decisive factor – it came too late for that and wasn’t large enough, although it certainly made Germany realise that it couldn’t win a more protracted war. Militarily, the key factor which finally won the first world war was British military industrial production which greatly outstripped that of any other country. However this would have been no use without the contribution of France…
The US entered the second world war because it was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the US, i.e. it had little choice.
The war probably could not have been won without the US (it’s just possible that the Russion influence might have been enough), but on the other hand, the US probably could not have won it without the UK and/or the Soviet Union – it would have had no base in Europe and would not have been able to develop the atomic bomb in which the MAUD report and foreign scientists were key. It should also be noted that the Royal Navy was actually larger than the US navy for most of the war, so the US would have had major problems with sea power.
The point of the above is not to be anti-American – which I’m most certainly not. The two parties were allies and we should all be glad of that, not engaging in silly points scoring.
The US president did have a choice: He could have chosen not to spend virtually every waking hour trying to manipulate the US and Axis powers into thinking war between them was necessary. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany may both have been evil but neither Pearl Harbor nor Hitler’s considered declaration of war with the US came out of the blue. It was FDR who actively courted war with them not the other way round.
John Rippengal wrote
Very erroneous. You should read up on Joseph Stilwell and Merrill’s Marauders (now the 75th Rangers Regiment) campaign on the Northern Front in the Burma campaign – where every man who fought in that regiment was awarded the Bronze Star and almost every man was wounded through campaigns at Walawbum, Shaduzup, Inkangahtawng and many others.
Mr. Rippengal also seems oblivious to the fact the largest bulk of Japanese ground forces in Asia never squared off with Western forces: they were too busy slaughtering Chinese civilians.
Before 12/7/41, most Americans did not want to get involved with the European war. Yet many believed that such involvement was inevitable – the result of 2 years of FDR’s preachings on the necessity of US entry into the war.
As for FDR being concerned with Soviet domination of Western Europe, please. Fdr’s first wartime VP was an avowed Soviet lover, and FDR himself was the first US President to acknowledge Stalin’s regime as the legitimate rulers of the USSR. FDR also sold the Eastern Europeans up the river, all but openly agreeing with Stalin that the USSR needed a “buffer zone”.
Furthermore, Mr. Rippengal, if you have some complaint with Mr. du Toit’s education, kindly turn the scorn in the direction of South Africa. While US public education *IS* mostly atrocious, it is not responsible for the gaps, or lack thereof, in Mr. du Toit’s education.
HJHJ, as for the US being unable to reach Europe without Britain, please refer to a map and the following tidbits of information – the US had formed secret alliances by 1941 with Brazil for the transshipment of troops and material through Brazil to North Africa. A longer trip to Europe? Sure. But a feasible one, one that would have left the US approaching Europe from the south, a potenially easier path. While the Royal Navy outsized the US Navy, neither the Nazi nor Italian maritime forces could claim such a superiority.
John Rippengal wrote
“the major Japanese land forces which were in Burma and south were defeated solely by the BritishCommonwealth forces although many Americans think it was Errol Flynn and some of his buddies”
So you are saying the yanks agree with you then?
Errol Flynn was an Australian.
🙂
Besides, back then it was still British and Imperial forces, no Commonwealth yet. The Australian expeditionary forces were called the 2’nd AIF, the Second Australian Imperial Forces. The 1’st AIF being, of course, those sent abroard during the Great War.
HJHJ as usual provides a measured reasonable view.
Then we have Mr Sivula suggesting in all seriousness that a transatlantic amphibious/airborne invasion could have been mounted by the US independently. Didn’t he ever hear of the huge logistic difficulties faced by the Overlord operation and that was for just a short cross channel trip.
The Brazil link with the main base in Recife was hardly a secret. It linked with the building of the Airfield – Wideawake Field – in Ascension. There was a constant stream of aircraft and military material being delivered from the US and Canada by this route which went on to the (NOTE) British colony of the Gold Coast (Accra)and from there to Europe and the Middle East. I travelled on part of the route myself as a civilian during the war once on a B24 Liberator and once on a brand new glider towing DC3 equipped with lots of extra fuel. We checked the extra fuel tanks in the main cabin – with a dipstick – during the flight. There were few if any aircraft in those days that could make a transatlantic trip non-stop and indeed the DC3 couldn’t even make it half way without inboard tanks. Most of the aircraft seemed to be flown by RAF Transport Command.
Incidentally I have never criticised US education. It is probably a lot better than the current British system run by crypto communists, Trots and fellow travellers.
I do blame the media though. They seem to keep the population in profound ignorance of what goes on and has gone in the rest of the world. Perhaps it is necessary to keep their strong sense of patriotism
so absent from our own society.
“But the well of goodwill towards Britain is not limitless, and frankly, only your support for our Excellent Adventure In Iraq has stemmed that disaffection for a while.”
Such subtle language 🙂
Keep in mind that there are vast differences in economic freedom among the states. If they were rated individually, I bet Texas would outpace Britain on the Index of Economic Freedom handily.
The IRA thing gets my dander up cuz those terror-funding Yankee leftists were never prosecuted.
The dominant mindset within the US State Department has as much in common with “us Americans” as Tom Cruise has with Brooke Shields. The State Dept. is dominated by the sort of weenie appeaseniks who didn’t want to ruffle the feathers of the Commies, and who went into a stark-raving panic when Reagan did just that. They’re just like the statists who created the EU – that’s why they pushed Britain in that direction. They’re not America.
Plus I hope Adriana becomes a more regular contributor here, too.
I think Freedom Ranking scores are great. Tax rates and unemployment rates, too — though I’d like more 5 year average rates for comparison of systems. The US is great.
Cindy Sheehan is dropping off the news as it becomes clear that she is not only full of Bush-hate, but also Jew-hate. And even Success-hate. Just as I I mention in my post on J. Chait’s hate.
In Slovakia, lots of normal folk don’t like the Iraq war, and find it easy to be negative; but it doesn’t feel like hate to me.
Heh, too busy ‘editoring’ here and blogging on other three blogs too. Sigh.
No one has mentione FDR’s masterstroke of sending a pro-Nazi British hating Ambassador like Kennedy to the UK. He spent much of his time trying to convince the British to surrender to Germany.
Then we need to talk about Lend-Lease which is another blot on FDR’s legacy. FDR stayed out of the war because he was in political hauk to mid-Western Krauts and Irish voters in Democratic strongholds like New York, Massachusetts and Illinois.
Alan K Henderson writes:
“The dominant mindset within the US State Department has as much in common with “us Americans” as Tom Cruise has with Brooke Shields.”
Yes, I was aware of that.
Nevertheless, I’m sure you will aprreciate that it is a bit rich being lectured on our apparent capitulation to the EU (which is a phenomnon largely confined to big business and our political classes) by someone from a country which has done its level best to shove us inside that particular prison.
To, then, be told, ‘Ah, that’s not us – that’s the work of our political classes’, simply deepens the irony!
I also have heard all of the complaints John Rippengal cites, particularly the IRA funding. I also heard complaints about America’s unconditional backing of Israel…is that something anyone else has come across?
Yes, on both counts.
What I’ve never understood about the IRA is why the British haven’t pointed out to all those Americans-of-Irish-descent that the money they’re donating isn’t going to irish nationalists, it’s going to wanna-be communists.
rosignol: If supporters were told that, they wouldn’t believe it, because they don’t want to believe it. They want to believe in the land of fabled yore and eternally dappled sunlight; a sentiment played upon by the people who drum up support and a hard thing to fight.
BTW, there is no widespread support for the IRA in the States and there never has been. It doesn’t take many fanatics to cause a lot of damage. Whatever anyone thinks of Bush, he takes the threat of IRA support seriously and certainly has a harder line on it than Clinton ever did.
Not that it matters anymore; as the IRA has apparently seen the light, so they tell us.
Thoughts from a passing leftist:
Anti-Americanism may be rife among the chatterati of London and th Home Counties set.
But in all honesty, it’s quite uncommon among ordinary working-class Midlanders of my aquaintance. These include, among the older ones, several Labour party and trade union activists.
Those I know who are inclined to anti-Americanism are few (that is, discounting those inclined to say: “Yanks: nice people, bit stupid”).
IMUHO ordinary folk are/were more enthusiastic about adopting and adapting American cultural innovation, than the traditional middle classes. Perhaps becuase the latter were more comfortable in the Old Order, and view the cultural changes of the last n-decades as conglomerate of Americanisation, vulgarisation, disrespect. Possibly the middle class is also more susceptible to Imperial nostalgia and/or “Third World” guilt complexes? Generally speaking even among those old enough to recall Empire, there is little regret for its passing.
Ah. So the difference between American and European society
is statistical; American has a higher variance: more at both ends.
That should be testable. Let’s ask La Griffe du Lion.
HJHJ,
I don’t know where you’re getting the impression that British military industrial production was larger than America’s in WWII. For the record,
“In 1940, after witnessing Germany’s Blitzkrieg in Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, the United States produced 309 tanks, versus 1,400 in Britain and 1,450 in Germany. In 1943, however, the United States manufactured 29,500 tanks, more in 1 year than Germany produced in the entire war from 1939 to 1945. In all, the United States manufactured 88,430 tanks during World War II versus 24,800 in Britain and 24,050 in Germany.” (Jerome G. Peppers Jr., History of United States Military Logistics 1935-1985 (Huntsville: Logistics Education Foundation Publishing, 1988)
To say nothing of planes and munitions, of course. The U.S. was already producing those and sending them to the Allies prior to our entering the war.
Della,
Have a you got a reference on the statement that Britain enjoys more economic freedom than the U.S. and “has for years”? It seems it depends on who runs the study. The Heritage Foundation agrees with you, the Canadian Fraser Institute does not. The Cato Institute also does not, and they have measurements going back to 1970.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Chapter%201%20-%20Economic%20Freedom%20of%20the%20World-1EFW2003ch1.pdf#
http://www.freetheworld.com/cgi-bin/freetheworld/getinfo2004.cgi
Mr. Rippengal; I’ve only lived here in the U.S. for twenty years, visited 47 states and in lived in three of them. My website has only had 5.5 million unique visitors over the past three years, had over six thousand comments posted there, and I’ve only exchanged emails with about four thousand Americans during the same period.
Clearly, by your lofty standards, this isn’t sufficient foundation for me to form an opinion about what Americans feel about anything.
Forgive me.
So Middle Englanders aren’t as keen on the Yanks these days, eh? Why ever could that be? I don’t suppose it has anything to do with being dragged by them into a wasteful, illegal, utterly boneheaded war which has made our name mud like theirs and placed us more at risk in our own country? No, not possibly. Only the densest and/or most chauvinist Brit could suppose that the Americans are in this with any but the best possible intentions. I mean, who wants to live in a ‘boring’ country like Canada, Sweden or Switzerland which minds its own business, when you could be rampaging round the globe spending money that would otherwise be squandered on hospitals and old age pensions, or even left in your own pocket? We’ve got to carry on crusading for the next 50 years or we’ll all be bowing down to Mecca five times a day.
As for the U.S. State Department encouraging Britain’s ties with Europe: of course we’ve encouraged it.
What we haven’t encouraged is Britain to ally herself with Europe at the expense of the U.S./U.K. “special relationship”, which seems to be the developing situation.
Kim du Toit writes:
“What we haven’t encouraged is Britain to ally herself with Europe at the expense of the U.S./U.K. “special relationship”, which seems to be the developing situation.”
Only a fool could have advocated the former without anticipating the latter.
Yup.
If anything, I have a lower opinion of our State Department than any Brit would.
Luniversal, when Sha’ria becomes the official law (or co-law) of your country, remember this comment.
Canada, whom you so clearly admire (despite their having sent soldiers to Afghanistan), has already started to incorporate Islamic law into its own legal system.
Leslie Ash,
Please re-read what I wrote. I said quite clearly and unambiguously that British military industrial production in the FIRST World War was eventually the decisive factor. I don’t think that anyone seriously disputes this. Lloyd George put the economy on a war footing far more effectively than in any other country.
No-one, least of all me, disputes that US military production in the second world war outstripped that of any other country and made the eventual outcome inevitable. British industrial production could never have been as great as that of the US, although it is interesting to note that by mid 1941 and from a much later start and with a much lower population, British military production exceeded that of Germany. Once again, the economy had been put on a war footing much more effectively.
Once again, let me re-emphasize that I am not at all anti-American, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t correct incorrect statements. In fact it’s my view that The British population, although often flippantly rude about the US is generally not anti-American, no more than is the case the other way around. Germany and some other European countries have, in my opinion, have been ‘infantilised’ (an unfortunate term but you get my meaning) through being protected militarily and diplomatically by the US for so long at little cost to themselves, that their populations are often anti-American simply because they take their current comfortable situation for granted. France is slightly different – many French people I meet simply parrot the line of their political leaders about the need to stand up to the US, without ever considering why or whether this is desirable.
Kim du Toit:
A passing (pro-American) leftist returns with questions.
“Britain to ally herself with Europe at the expense of the U.S./U.K. special relationship”
Has the behaviour of the UK towards the USA truly been of that order?
“…goodwill towards Britain is not limitless, and frankly, only your support for our Excellent Adventure In Iraq has stemmed that disaffection for a while.”
In what way has Britain merited this disaffection, may I ask? Are we now supporting, or have we in the past supported, your enemies? Beside the current conflict, the UK has afforded the US military and diplomatic support on a number of previous occasions.
I cannot see that British cooperation with European countries in defence procurement or even defence coordination, are “inimical to American interests.” My impression is that the UK is striving to preserve interoperability with US and EU members of NATO. For instance, plans for purchase of the JSF, and copperation with the US on next-generation battlefied digital interlink comms/data standards.
The only area where the UK has merited US ire is the EU “military grade” GPS system .Where I suspect the MoD of falling asleep, the FO of mendacity to stroke Continental govts. and the US State Dept. of astounding political incompetence in not assembling a UK political coalition that could have killed this stone dead.
It should be realised, though, that the US Congress and aerospace lobby has a post-war history of leaving the UK holding the shitty end of the stick on transatlantic defence cooperation deals.
Though I grant on truly vital deals, where PM’s and Presidents stamp on problems (Trident, intelsat data) the US has been a reliable partner.
As for the Falklands “threat”, well the UK can tactfully say to Argentina: “Come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough!”
P.S.
Luneiversal:
You, sir, are moonbat. You assert your own opinions as if they were inarguable facts. Hve you ever considered that your “right on” opinions may be mistaken?
Well, the moon is blue and I just saw a pig fly by my office window. I agree with HJHJ.
Thoughtless dependence on the American defence umbrella has indeed encouraged an infantilism throughout the leading EU nations. They think the world really is this safe, without effort. Given that they (save France) have no defence of their own, one wonders how they would respond to military aggression from outside.
What HJHJ said about France is also correct. I was discussing this with two French friend – one a professor and a doctor’s wife, the wife of a wealthy dentist – both worldly and intelligent. My position was, there was absolutely no point to the EU. “Oh, but we must have the EU!” they both exclaimed in shock.
Me: Why?
Them: Well, we need it!
Me: What for?
Them: Well, we need it for protection!
Me: Protection against what?
Them: Well ….uh … well …. against America.
Me: America’s going to attack France? I must have missed that announcement.
Them: Well, no …
And there you have it; two intelligent, articulate people totally brain-washed with garbage and believing it because their entire society – including the schools and state-owned broadcasting – is predicated on “mutual protection from America”. How stupid can you get?
This begs the question, so what? How is the mighty EU, which has only one military that can scramble in five minutes, going to defend itself against the United States even if, in some alternate universe, America decided to attack?
I don’t doubt Kim du Toit’s knowledge of US opinions; it’s the opinions which are both swaggering and faulty.
What I meant to go on to say, perhaps badly, is that is no cause for Anti-Americanism only cause for being irritated by them while appreciating there is a lot more both good and likeable in the American people.
No less ironic than Americans being lectured by Solzhenitsyn on liberty. Or by Samizdata on the ills of nationalized health care and gun control.
Which is to say not ironic at all. What would be ironic is criticism of socialized health care from a top NHS administrator, or of the European Union by one of those Euroweenie-friendly State Dept. flunkies, or of human rights abuses by the late Mr. Brezhnev.
For those who like to work up a bit of a lather take a look at the comment of ‘Midwesterner’ relating to the Anglosphere Immigration Blog.
There is a piece of crass, insular, mind-boggling, redneck stupid ignorance.
Apparently King George forced the Americans into having slavery. If it hadn’t been for that everything would be racially rosy in the US.
When you talk of support for the IRA remember: South Boston, Chicago, Brooklyn and South Dallas (I think) are by no means indicative of the entire US. South Boston, at least, can be seen as the equivalent of some of those parts of Birmingham full of Islamists.
I trust that someone informed ‘Midwesterner’ that there were no slavery-free nations at the time, so there was to reason to expect the American colonies to make its start without the so-called “peculiar institution.” Hey, it took us a while to put John Locke into full effect…
Oh, and the slave trade (and the American colonies) started well before King George.
No black slavery = chummy race relations, huh? By golly, that’s right – we never enslaved the Irish, and look how warmly we welcomed them to our shores.
SLR –Britain to ally herself with Europe at the expense of the U.S./U.K. special relationship”
Has the behaviour of the UK towards the USA truly been of that order?—
Start reading EU Referendum. Bits from many very recent postings. Also start reading Rantburg.
—
In terms of strategic alliances, it is a given that one of our most steadfast allies is Australia, tied by bonds of blood and Empire, having fought alongside us in two World Wars.
However, as the UK turns more and more to the inwards-looking EU, with its “European defence identity”, and its European Rapid Reaction Force – a European Army in all but name – things out in the big wide world are changing. And one of those changes is the forging of a strategic alliance between the United States and Australia, leaving to UK out in the cold.
We saw some of this during the Tsunami disaster earlier this year, when Australia and the US were two of the main players in the immediate relief effort, with the UK nowhere to be seen.
Now, in a move that is being seen as the latest chapter in the deepening strategic partnership between the Royal Australian Navy and its US counterpart, the Australian government has ordered an upgraded version of the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class anti-aircraft destroyer to become the Australian Navy’s new front-line warship for the 21st Century.
—
Want to know why?
The Financial Times this morning carries a story headed: “Britain plans sweeping defence audit”. According to this source, a sweeping review of Britain’s defence industry is to be carried out, to determine what weapons technologies should be maintained in the UK and which can be ceded to foreign suppliers. The review, says the FT, could lead to a fundamental reshaping of the nation’s defence industry.
AND
In recent weeks, writes Booker, I have reported how the Ministry of Defence has been secretively committing billions of pounds to buying new equipment from European defence contractors, as it prepares to integrate Britain’s Armed Forces with the EU’s planned “Rapid Reaction Force”. He continues:
One project after another has been brought to light by my colleague and fellow-researcher Dr Richard North, but the missing piece of this jigsaw was some central agreement that had set this unprecedented revolution in Britain’s defence policy in train. This has now emerged, in a “secret treaty” between Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden in 2000, which at last makes comprehensible the startlingly consistent pattern of Britain’s recent defence purchases….
…Only now are we seeing the fruits of this agreement, as the MoD closes down one joint project with the US after another, and commits taxpayers to spending tens of billions of pounds on German, Italian, Swedish and French equipment ready for the Armed Forces to be fully integrated with their continental counterparts. And the MoD will have pulled this off without it ever having been discussed by or voted on by Parliament. What is unfolding amounts to the most astonishing coup d’etat in our history.
I agree about the European one-upping; it can really reach ridiculous proportions. I recently spent time in Santa Fe NM which has three or four very nice Native American museums. In one of them, my husband overheard some Euro tourists remark (at an exhibit of some ancient Pueblo Indian-made bowls): “It’s not like this stuff is really all that old. The Romans were making things long before this stuff.”
(PS — I’m always puzzled in general by Europeans bragging about the Romans or the Italian Renaissance, etc., to “prove” that they are somehow better than Americans: do they not understand that before 1776, this was OUR history as well?)
That said, the “USA is number one” type of American can be pretty embarassing. They make me cringe.
It is true that the anti-slavery contingent from the Northern colonies wanted to put anti-slavery language in the Declaration of Independence, but it was struck out at the insistence of some the representatives of the Southern colonies who would not have signed otherwise.
That said, the Northern colonies abolished slavery shortly after 1776. Not that it was much of a sacrifice for them; African slaves did not fare well in their climate and tended to have a short life span anyways. That is one reason why slavery did not take hold in New England or Canada. And the New Englanders had other industries besides agricultural cash crops to depend on.