Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

OK, before anyone starts shouting, the title of this thread is a metaphorical title for the purposes of the argument I would like to put forward. The argument is, in a sense, a possible starting point for the root cause of anti-american tendancies throughout the Western world (in particular Europe).

There are many people that get annoyed with the charge and phrase US hegemony. Some see it as an academic and intellectually elitist way of being anti-american and reject it thusly. But when one actually looks at it one cannot deny that US hegemony exists. The question is whether one uses the idea in arguments for or against America. The concept itself is not anti-american but its use can be. In comparison of course its use can also be a pro-american. For example, without US hegemony, Israel would not be able to use the 'war on terrorism' as a justifciation for its current actions. Obviously this argument is a double-edged sword, but assuming you are in favour of the 'war on terrorism' and Israel's position you can see how the concept of US hegemony can be positive and not negetive.

That said, it is unfortunate that the concept has tended to be hijacked by the academic left and used in the opposite and negative way. The solution to this hijacking though, it would seem to me at least, lies somewhere within the catalyst of itself. ie if we can identify where US hegemony started we may be able to find a way of reducing it so that it becomes a historical concept and not an active one.

I would argue that the catalyst for this academic tendancy lies within the collapse of the Soviet Union. The concept has certainly become one of dominance only in the post-cold war era. The next question is why?

What I want to put forward is something about power and the balance thereof. In the Cold War days no one I think can deny that there was a distinct balance of power within the world. That balance being between West and East in the form of the West and Nato and the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. In these days US hegemony was not a concern and the balance of power was. What we need is a return to those days.

Of course, I am not saying a return to the days of the Soviet Union existing, but instead am saying we need a return to those days in which there was more than one superpower. Only then I think will we see a end to the anti-americanism that is so strong in Western Europe. With the creation of a second superpower US hegemony will know longer be seen as the overiding dominant force. The second superpower does not have to be one in opposition to the US either. Just one that can stand alongside it with the same amount of pressure, influence and 'muscle'.

Where could this superpower come from though? I think that it can come from Western Europe and the European Union (yes smug a pro-europe piece). It is there that the negative feelings about US hegemony are strongest so it would seem reasonable that the solution to removing the concept should lie there also. I would argue that adress the imbalnces in the power axis of the Western world is essential to not only stability, but also to the unjust way that US hegemony has been hijacked to promote anti-american feelings.

The balance of power in th Cold War brought stability of sorts, imagine the stabilty we could achieve if two superpowers existed that in essence had some of the same hopes, dreams and ideals.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

I think it is defintely true that people liked the US more when they were afraid of the soviets. I think that in those days people were more ready to accept the interests of the US as their own interests, or at least running parallel to them. It is important to note that not everyone was anti-soviet, but a significant majority were.

I don't think that Europe fits the bill, though, as the things that I have listed above held true because of the antipathy towards the soviets resulting in a lifeboat mentality among the rest. In that role, Europe would simply let people pick sides, either with Europe and disliking the US or the other way around, the same as the USSR did.

It seems to me that you only get to become sustainably big and powerful by successful trade with the external world and that in order to maintain it, you act on the world stage with these interests in mind; these actions might well be to the disadvantage of many people inside the other countries and so you become unpopular (both inside those countries and also ouside them among 'concerned citizens' elsewhere). I think that resentment towards the US inside an integrated Europe would be less than it is now as the Europe could act against the US in some ways and so reduce the feeling of futility that people have as regards US actions that they find unpleasant. I think that a lot of people feel resentment that their wishes are much less important than those of some hillbilly in the rural US, assuming the hillbilly can stop fucking his sister for long enough to go and vote; our incest-loving hillbilly can vote on domestic matters but his choice can have consequences far away that he may not be interested in. Thus it becomes fashionable to accuse merkins of being ignorant. Many of us non-merkins are ignorant in exactly the same way (although sisters run pretty fast around these parts) but our choices have less ramrifications abroad. As citizens of an integrated and powerful Europe, we too can be hated as much as merkins!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
As citizens of an integrated and powerful Europe, we too can be hated as much as merkins!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

The problem here is that anti-Americanism actually predates the era of American unipolarity.

How else to explain the uncanny number of otherwise intelligent westerners (Bertrand Russell, Alger Hiss) who identified themselves as more idelogically aligned with the USSR than with the west? Knowing what we do about the USSR, can there be ANY explanation for this other than reflexive anti-Americanism?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 5526

Yes, but what would be the power that would be balanced?

I can't see a neo arms race being an effective solution. (China might work for that at some point. (yeah right. Just what we need, another fun cold war, and the constant looming threat of annihilation that would make this latest crap seem like a picnic))

I see problems with it being economics. All the rich industrialists are in bed with each other.

The techno war worked with Japan for a while. That was cool as far as the science and innovation that came out of it. (except for those stupid robot dogs that kids like my niece love)

eh. I think the anti-americanism is justified.

double eh. It's like work anyway. If you're a boss, there will be people who hate you no matter what you're like.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
*snip*

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Russell was a socialist, I thought.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

I meant to type Shaw. I think Spooky's sig threw me off. It's his fault.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16824

"I think the anti-americanism is justified"


Just as justified as anti-

Afghanistanism
Albaniaism
Algeriaism
Andorraism
Angolaism
Antigua and Barbudaism
Argentinaism
Armeniaism
Australiaism
Austriaism
Azerbaijanism
Bahamasism
Bahrainism
Bangladeshism
Barbadosism
Belarusism
Belgiumism
Belizeism
Beninism
Bhutanism
Boliviaism
Bosnia and Herzegovinaism
Botswanaism
Brazilism
Brunei Darussalamism
Bulgariaism
Burkina Fasoism
Burmaism (Myanmar)
Burundiism
Cambodiaism
Cameroonism
Canadaism
Cape Verdeism
Central African Republicism
Chadism
Chileism
Chinaism
Colombiaism
Comorosism
Congoism
Congoism,
Costa Ricaism
Côte d'Ivoireism
Croatiaism
Cubaism
Cyprusism
Czech Republicism
Denmarkism
Djiboutiism
Dominicaism
Dominican Republicism
Ecuadorism
Egyptism
El Salvadoismr
Equatorial Guineaism
Eritreaism
Estoniaism
Ethiopiaism
Fijiismism
Finlandism
Franceism
Gabonism
Gambiaism
Georgiaism
Germanyism
Ghanaism
Greeceism
Grenadaism
Guatemalaism
Guineaism
Guinea-Bissauism
Guyanaism
Haitiism
Hondurasism
Hungaryism
Icelandism
Indiaism
Indonesiaism
Iranism
Iraqism
Irelandism
Israelism
Italy ism
Jamaicaism
Japanism
Jordanism
Kazakhstanism
Kenyaism
Kiribatiism
Koreaism
North koreaism
South koreaism
Kuwaitism
Kyrgyzstanism
Laosism
Latviaism
Lebanonism
Lesothoism
Liberiaism
Libyaism
Liechtensteinism
Lithuaniaism
Luxembourg ism
Macedoniaism
Madagascarism
Malawiism
Malaysiaism
Maldivesism
Maliism
Maltaism
Marshall Islandsism
Mauritaniaism
Mauritiusism
Mexicoism
Micronesiaism
Moldovaism
Monacoism
Mongoliaism
Moroccoism
Mozambiqueism
Myanmarism
Namibiaism
Nauruism
Nepalism
The Netherlandsism
New Zealandism
Nicaraguaism
Nigerism
Nigeriaism
Norwayism
Omanism
Pakistanism
Palauism
Palestinianism
Panamaism
Papua New Guineaism
Paraguayism
Peruism
The Philippinesism
Polandism
Portugal ism
Qatarism
Romaniaism
Russia Rwandaism
St. Kitts and Nevisism
St. Luciaism
St. Vincent and The Grenadinesism
Samoaism
San Marinoism
São Tomé and Príncipeism
Saudi Arabiaism
Senegal Serbia and Montenegroism
Seychellesism
Sierra Leoneism
Singaporeism
Slovakiaism
Sloveniaism
Solomon Islandsism
Somaliaism
South Africaism
Spainism
Sri Lankaism
Sudanism
Surinameism
Swazilandism
Swedenism
Switzerlandism
Syriaism
Taiwanism
Tajikistanism
Tanzaniaism
Thailandism
Togoism
Tongaism
Trinidad and Tobagoism
Tunisiaism
Turkeyism
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdomism
Uruguayism
Uzbekistanism
Vanuatuism
Vatican Cityism
Venezuelaism
Vietnamism
Western Saharaism
Yemenism
Yugoslaviaism
Zaireism
Zambiaism
and
Zimbabweism

to one form of bigot or another


Not calling you a bigot missphinx, just making that point.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

u4b, what was the point you were trying to make there? Also what comments, if any, do you have on the idea that anti-americanism (and its growing presence amongst other Western nations in the past years) has occured due to the removal of the power axis that preceeded it?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16824

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky
u4b, what was the point you were trying to make there? Also what comments, if any, do you have on the idea that anti-americanism (and its growing presence amongst other Western nations in the past years) has occured due to the removal of the power axis that preceeded it?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1606

I cannot support European countries uniting as a second world power with all the anti-Americanism there. If we see you all getting too organised, we will be forced to impose economic sanctions.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9187

You don't mean...no more Big Macs????

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
Don’t really care. It seems to me not worth bothering with since I don’t think its valid contempt, well maybe as valid as my contempt towards NSYNC. We are probably the boy band of countries.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by splAt
I cannot support European countries uniting as a second world power with all the anti-Americanism there. If we see you all getting too organised, we will be forced to impose economic sanctions.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 5526

(aside to euphorbia - I very much appreciate your points of view here as counterpoint and food for thought, the same way I appreciate sp00k's. I don't mind being called a bigot for that statement - it was a blatant overgeneralization. I meant something more like I can understand why there is anti-american sentiment etc. etc.)

No more big Mac droppings. (Hey are McDonald's the same in Europe in that they have clean bathrooms as standard features? That's the only reason I set foot in them here.) No more sitcoms either, buckos. No more Buffy. I suppose PBS would have to live without all the wonderful BBC imports in return. That would be tough, but we all have to make sacrifices.

Cold War as seen from child's perspective: a comic book. The USSR was the Bad Guy with unknown and evil powers. US got to be the Defender of Good. Simple and stupid.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by missphinx
Cold War as seen from child's perspective: a comic book. The USSR was the Bad Guy with unknown and evil powers. US got to be the Defender of Good. Simple and stupid.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

The massacre of 20 million people for the crime of owning land

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky


I dispute both this figure and the statement. But before I tell you why Chips can you tell what you are directly referring too? The liquidation of the Kulaks? Collectivisation of farming as a whole? The Gulags under Stalin? The Civil War between the Menshaviks and the Bolsheviks? The total number of people killed for being enemnys of the state?

Need to know buddy.
[/B]

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

Well the numbers for Stalin are wrong. According to the latest estimates from the Kremlin Archives the figure is far closer to 50 million. These figures are made up of not only the purges but also the collectivisation policy and the Gulags.

The thing one has too remember is that the atrocities of the USSR that made it the 'bad guy' actually all happened from 1924 to 1952. Of that time he was our ally for over half of it. After the death of Stalin the numbers dropped signficantly, so significantly they actually dropped into the 100s or so (discounting official wars).

My point of dispute is that it was not the USSR that killed 50 million but was Stalin and Stalin alone. Krushchev did not. Krushchev was actually a turning point.

On the point of the Kulaks howevre, this was not a liquidation due to land or fram owenrship in the small cooperatives that they were strong in. It has been argued by many academics that the argument used by Stalin to justify the liquidation policy was just that. An argument. The real motivation it has been argued for the policy stemmed from Stalin georgians roots and his ethnic difference with the kulaks. Thus their liquidation was a policy of ethnic cleansing and not one of appropriating the means of production for the state.

Of all the leaders of the USSR Stalin was the nastieit. But he was not nasty because he was communist (in the popular sense of the word communist only) after all Trotsky was a communist too but they did'nt agree with each other about method.

Stalinsim was the worst excess of the marxist-lennisint approach, Lennism being the second worst.

My intention in dispute was alwasy to say that your figures were far too conservative btw, and also too say that when one looks at the total period of soviet history between 1917 and 1991 it becomes clear that the mode of thought against the USSR was based purely on its assessment of Stalin and no one else, especially none of the liberal soviets that preceeded him.

Stalin was the key to the 'hype' about the Soviet Unions 'plans' for world domination. Plans might I add that never existed after Stalin's death. Krushchev had no desire to expand massively. He was far more worried about China and Mau distancing the country from Moscow. He was also scared of the US threat in Korea and Vietnam. When looking at the archived records from the Krushchev era (as I was required too some years ago) you see that far from wanting expand Krushchev was fearful of the balkanisation of the Soviet Union through self-determination. Irnoically the singular biggest cause of the collapse of the Union in 1991.

Bascially, if it were not for Stalin, the 'evil soviet union' belief would never have likely existed.

PS: My specilaist subject was a serious comment btw. The one subject I stuck with throughout my degree was Soviet and Russian Political History from 1917 to 1995. I visited Moscow and St Petersburg, and have researched and reviewed shedloads from the Moscow Archive for my professors book)

Last edited by Spooky on 12-07-2001 at 04:52 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1606

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky


Would do you suggest t