Customer Reviews

Understanding Anti-Americanism: Its Orgins and Impact at Home and Abroad

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I just happen to live in the same community as the author although I don't know him personally. One can listen and read all the theory and opinion of the Left about world issues but all one really needs to do is immerse oneself in a "People's Republic" college atmosphere to get a true understanding of the real thinking behind the rhetoric. Did I say thinking? What we have confronting us here is an immense tautology: Americans who have made up their minds that their country, its history, its people, are bad, who only accept information that confirms this point of view, and who immediately invalidate any contrary evidence. The amount of historical ignorance in this college community is astonishing. My "favorite" comment, by a graduate of Smith College no less--typical of what one can hear on the streets or in a coffee shop daily--was "We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima AFTER the Japanese surrendered." Too many people here unthinkingly believe these sorts of lies and distortions, and this is a grotesque example. Imagine the thinking that goes on regarding complex and subtle issues

Another Smith grad, almost in tears, admitted to me that after six years of private school and four years at one of our most prestigious women's colleges she knew absolutely nothing about history. Oh, she knew plenty about women's issues and imperialism and gender theory and racism but when I gave her a book on the general history of this century she was shocked over, for example, Woodrow Wilson's attempts to create a permanent peace and a League of Nations. You see, she'd been taught that the whole history of history, the "white male patriarchy," was one of non-stop oppression and exploitation. She was also amazed that Teddy Roosevelt worked in partnership with his wife and didn't keep her barefoot and in the kitchen. Take all the ideas she'd been handed in her life and replace most of the key white male terms with "Jew" and she was as well indoctrinated for hate and genocide as any Hitler Youth ever had been. Even she was finally disgusted with talk among her classmates--talk most emphatically not discouraged by the school--of certain classes not being worth taking because they were all about "dead white males."

I'm not a Conservative, in fact my sympathies are with old-fashioned Progressives, Populists and Liberals, but over the years, hearing one hateful, irrational, and horrifying thing after another emerge from the mouths of self proclaimed Leftists, and revolutionaries, hearing "ecology" advocates talk excitedly of the need to eliminate the human race so the planet can survive, and listening to feminists projecting their rage about family and personal troubles on half the planet, I have learned to utterly despise the American Left. What's deeply troubling is most of these people I've encountered come from comfortable upper-middle class backgrounds, some finance their political exploits with trust fund money, most, if not all, have no direct experience with want or oppression, at least of the kind they protest about. They travel to Palestine or Central America for a week or two-in ironic parodies of the old Grand Tour---and return as world-class experts on the downtrodden. They spend time only with sympathizers, seldom engage in any self-criticism, and have well-constructed rationalizations to deflect any external criticism: a famous feminist one being "logic is a male construct." Their teachers, often as not, are venom-filled America-haters from the Viet Nam era. It's just appalling.

Additional proof that this indignation, this moral outrage, this alleged caring for people, is thoroughly suspect is the complete lack of concern shown in communities like this whenever the foreign Anti-American side engages in their own atrocities or injustices. Leftists get strangely quiet or become bizarre apologists when confronted with the slaughter of children at Beslan or the car bombing of kids in Baghdad. The argument is always that this is somehow a valid response to things we do, never that no one should do these things under any circumstances. Two students admitted to me that even they were shocked by the lack of outrage over what happened to 170 kids at Beslan. Leftists were equally close-mouthed years ago when confronted by the numerous atrocities of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. You see, principle is not the issue here, it's all about hate and demonization, and it's often from the same people who claim to be on the side of peace and love. Their twisted logic is this: when we screw up it's because we're evil, when the opposition screws up it's also because we're evil.

I'm not thrilled that books like this give ammunition for opposing extremists that I don't care for either, but Hollander's primary points, and the points of his associates, are valid--very valid. From what I've seen close up and from what I've heard from average, decent people from the so-called Red States, I'd argue that the American Left, in the course of its now nearly forty-year-old temper tantrum, its vicious and almost indiscriminate lashing out at anything and everything about American culture, it's perpetual disabling of the Democratic Party, its refusal to compromise or see another's point of view, has succeeded in driving most sensible Americans right into the hands of Republicans and Conservatives. They are the best thing that's ever happened to the Right, a loud and obnoxious group of people forever alienating average and often decent Americans, mainstream Christians, moderates, and patriotic people who believe in American traditions and ideals, with their endless, vicious, hate-drenched accusations. If I were an unscrupulous Right Winger, I'd secretly finance the American Left and I'd fund Ralph Nader--the election spoiler, and the guy who, in the Sixties, helped the oil industry by not only single-handedly postponing the future of the small fuel-efficient car but, by inference, steering people to bigger "safe at any speed" gas guzzlers. He's also anti-nuclear, isn't he? Has anybody ever asked him why it is that almost everything he does eventually helps the Republicans or the oil interests?

As far as all that foreign hate goes, well I've listened to some reasonable complaints and a mountain of absurd complaints from foreigners. Perceptions of this country overseas, especially among the average folks, are often absolutely ridiculous and I'm not about to blame McDonalds or the movies. Please tell me, somebody, anybody, how a bunch of people living in various spots thousands of miles from the US have such thorough knowledge of my country's history, aspirations, ideals, motivations, foreign policy--especially when many AMERICANS--people who live here, read the papers, see what's going on--have plenty of trouble with all that? Is it a highly informed and worldly Islamic militant who calls us the Great Satan or someone who sees us through a glass very darkly, if at all? And if they aren't really seeing us, just what are they seeing, and, more importantly, what are they projecting on us? How is it so many here can readily demonize our own country's "rednecks" and "yahoos," and our own superstitious medievalists, and not ever think that maybe, just maybe, there are plenty more just like them filling up various other nations of the world, running them in fact, maybe even wanting nuclear weapons? Why are our Fundamentalists bad and other people's Fundamentalists worthy of respect?

No I'm sorry. Mistakes have been made and will continue to be made. Every country and every culture does stupid selfish things, exploits its underdogs, molests its neighbors--takes advantage of opportunities (and this country probably agonizes over this stuff more than most). This idea that there was a pristine idyllic world before the West, and especially the US, turned up and wrecked it all is the single greatest and most dangerous fallacy of modern times. It threatens to trample on those aspects of Western Civilization that offer real hope for decency and justice in the world. We've seen the options: totalitarianism, theocracy, tribalism, and so forth and none offers the maximum amount of freedom and justice to everyone with the least amount of sacrifice of culture and beliefs. What's conservative Islam's answer to world peace? Simple. Everyone converts to Islam and the Koran governs everything. Honestly, that's their worldview. Our answer? A system that actively protects people's right to their own beliefs. What they lose is their right to engage in a system of justice that should be abhorent to the most die-hard cultural relativist. Should. Cultural relativism has made a hash out of this type of thinking by failing to accept that one system can in fact better than another, if--and this is absolutely key--WE'RE TO TAKE THE FATE OF THE WHOLE OF HUMANITY INTO CONSIDERATION. No, we're being scapegoated big time and, in many ways and given the records of every other culture, we deserve it least of all.

I have purchased this book from Amazon and read several of its chapters. This book consists of articles by many thoughtful writers on the causes of anti-Americanism organized by region. The book is insightful and it is hard to disregard its contents simply from one political perspective or another, since it presents a multitude of arguments from qualified sources. Sadly, idiots like the previous reviewer, J.D. Shockley, is cutting and pasting "a review" of this book that in no way addresses it contents, and which he has used in its exact same form to "review" multiple different books. His review is an abuse of the Amazon review system, because it reveals nothing but his personal political beliefs. This book has merit as both a highly readable and academic analysis of the many regionally and culturally specific root causes of anti-Americanism in different parts of the world. I recommend it highly, because the articles reveal many of the cultural and political elements, such as reactions against globalism and an advocacy of socialism that colors so much of the anti-American perspectives that we hear.

This book begins with a fine introduction by Paul Hollander, who points out that one aspect of anti-Americanism is a bogus attempt to equate the United States or its policies with those of National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union, or Arab terrorism. And he mentions some of the fiercer domestic "criticism" of our nation.

James Ceasar then discusses the philosophical origins of anti-Americanism in Europe. We see the image of the United States as MacDonald's, Disneyland, and Microsoft. But that's unfair, of course. I rarely eat at MacDonald's: much better hamburgers are available elsewhere. I dislike Disneyland, but I do like some of our fine National Parks, including Yellowstone. And I do use Microsoft products, even though I admit that they have some serious inherent flaws. There is no need to blame America for one's dislike of some of its less attractive products of course. The rest of the world is at least as responsible.

Anthony Daniels talks about French anti-Americanism. He explains that French is no longer the language of all civilized men. Instead, it is the sixth most common European language, with fewer native speakers than English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and German.

Michael Mosbacher and Digby Anderson write about British anti-Americanism. That includes a discussion of Harold Pinter, who regards America as waging war against the rest of the world. And we see combined effects of radicalized Islamists and a left-wing anti-American elite, as well as a few folks on the far right. Michael Freund's chapter is on Germany, and he makes an interesting between opposition to modernity in National Socialist times, and anti-American anti-modernist tendencies today.

Patrick Clawson and Barry Rubin tell us about anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Some say that much of this is a reaction to American support of Israel. But that's an oversimplification: Arab anti-Americanism was strong even in "the 1950s and 1960s, well before the United States developed a special relationship with Israel." It appears that radical Islamists hate America at least as much for its "religious liberty, freedom of the press, and equality before the law" as it does for our support of human rights in Israel. In addition, they mention that while the Arab "street" is rather anti-American, that is not at all the case for the Iranian "street."

Michael Radu mentions that 10% of those who live in the United States are Latin Americans. Nevertheless, quite a few people find a way, generally fraudulent, to blame America for the poverty of many Latin Americans. In addition, most Latin Americans incorrectly feel that the United States can manipulate and control Latin America at will. Finally, the Catholic Church has played a role in all this, with Jesuits often disseminating anti-U.S. "liberation theology" material.

David Brooks has a chapter on Nicaragua. I found it interesting to see how academics who visited Nicaragua in 1987 got a very unbalanced view about the amount of support for the Sandinistas. Those who actually met a representative set of Nicaraguans came away with an extremely different point of view.

Marc Falcoff writes about Cuba. One day, the United States and Cuba will indeed have good relations. Falcoff asks if there will then be a problem caused by the very distorted view of the United States produced by the Cuban media and educational system. Walter D. Connor's chapter is about Russia, which he shows to be much more of a European nation (as opposed to an Asian nation) than I would have thought.

Roger Kimball has an excellent chapter on domestic anti-Americanism. He reminds us that just as English pacifism "inculcated an attitude that aided England's enemies," anti- Americanism "is objectively pro-terrorist." We see that if one understands why vicious people are vicious, that provides no immunity from the effects of that viciousness. And we see that anti-Americanism is almost the exact opposite of dissent. Kimball feels that American resoluteness will reduce anti-Americanism. If that is so, perhaps that means that there is something to anti-Bush feelings as part of anti-Americanism. As one who voted against Bush, I feel it is unfair to equate Bush with all of America. But I also feel that Bush has not been a particularly resolute President.

Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes discuss the Communist Left and its rejection of American society. Next is Cathy Young's chapter on feminist hostility to American society. One feminist boasted that only 8% of the world's population are white men, calling it "a very encouraging fact." She may be overlooking the fact that quite a few Women are very happily married to white men! Still, what are legitimate feminist issues? Crime, the economy, abortion, child care, the balancing of work and motherhood, and schools for children ... these ought to be part of it. How about female genital mutilation? Or other forms of severe oppression of women that we often see in Islamic tyrannies? If one disregards all these issues in an attempt to oppose America, well, one is not a feminist, as far as I am concerned. And I won't be the only one to feel that way!

Adam Garfinkle discusses domestic peace movements. While there is always legitimate domestic opposition to every American use of force, there is also some anti-American opposition, and many Americans greet this with well-deserved skepticism.

Sandra Stotsky has a fine article about the teaching of a totally bogus moral equivalence between America's behavior with that of National Socialist Germany. And the book concludes with an article by Bruce Thornton on anti-Americanism and popular culture. War is indeed gruesome, and we need to be aware of the principles for which we fight. As Thornton says, "absent that context, the miseries of war become an emotional media spectacle rather than useful information." And that can make supposedly objective media coverage into "stealth editorials" that can become an outright assault on American interests as well as on human rights.

I recommend this book.

This is an excellent book. However, unlike the suggested censorship of the LBHR, you must decide for yourself whether to read it or not.

This book, although it quotes profusely the "real" reasons for anti-Americanism given by a wide range of intellectuals from both sides of the Atlantic in its introduction, oddly still fails to follow up those items in the text of the book. As a result, it falls short of addressing the issues of Anti-Americanism directly, preferring instead to make an oblique "right turn" leaving a "smoke-screen like" trail of a intellectualized but thinly veiled reactionary defense of the "American way" disguised as giving the reader the "real" reasons for anti-Americanism.

By choosing to abstract, intellectualize and then obfuscate as they telescoped and watered down the comments of those they quoted in the introduction, these authors have cancelled their academic bona fides and a great deal of their academic integrity in the process. The authors' list is a safe, narrow, anodyne but ultimately disingenuous set of rationalizations that fails to pass the laugh test. By excluding U.S. support of Israel, the editor of this volume have undermined their own credibility and ensured that no one will take them seriously. Their list of (1) the fall of communism, (2) the assertion of American military power, (3) the personality of GW Bush, (4) globalization, and (5) Arab fundamentalism, sadly only represents their massaging of their own data to cover their thinly veiled ideological agenda.

As someone who worked in the UN for over 20 years, and heard daily, personally and incessantly from that body's international diplomats the same reasons given by those quoted in the introduction, I can attest to the fact that the editor had it right in the quotes he disparaged in the introduction. Those quotes contained the "real" reasons for anti-Americanism. Unfortunately there is little or no overlap between the editor's final list and those he quotes in the introduction. The reasons the UN diplomats gave tracks almost exactly with those quoted in the book's introduction. They were (in order of importance):

(1) Unswerving U.S. support in the Middle East for a racist and out of control militarist and nuclear-armed Israel;

(2) America's military and cultural arrogance coupled with callous insensitivity to issues important to the rest of the world;

(3) Its colossal hypocrisy both domestically regarding its own stated ideals --especially as regards its continued racism against black Americans -- but also internationally, with its hypocrisy being hidden beneath a flurry of false rhetoric of racial equality and democratic fairness;

(4) Its military and cultural hegemony, penetrating other cultures against their will and often coupled with ignorant and reactionary leaders who have an utter disregard for, knowledge of, and lack of respect or regard for, the value of other cultures; and

(5)U.S. support for unbridled capitalism, (including as it affects globalization) as well as its support for reactionary and Fascist-leaning governments around the world, but especially in Latin and South America.

This list does not involve rocket science. What we do as a nation is on display for everyone to see. Fancy rhetorical footwork and intellectual obfuscation does not work. It just makes us look even more reactionary and recalcitrant. Here was an excellent opportunity for a group of academics to put on the record what everybody else in the world already knows, but instead this group chose to keep their heads buried in the sand and punt. Shameful. Two stars.

The book is often openly biased, and it fails to confront impartially different opinions on the topics of discussion. It also suffers from a lack of cultural relativism as it takes the American-centric point of view for granted.
The volume does not offer a reflection of possible American wrong-doing, but tends to defend it. As a result, anti-Americanism is too often considered as static, unjustified and illegitimate without analysing it as a relevant critique of American foreign-policy attitudes.
The book poorly analyses the sources and reasons for anti-Americanism and its trend in relation to US foreign policy decisions. Having analysed how US actions have resulted in increased anti-Americanism, the book could have provided a stronger evaluation of American foreign policy and would eventually offer a lesson for a more multilateral, law-based, balanced and pacifist US foreign-policy strategy.

Arabs and Muslims do NOT hate America. They are angry, indeed indignant, about U.S. policies in their region, and the ways the U.S. uses its power to dominate, invade, impose sanctions, support corrupt regimes, exploit oil resources. These are, however, POLITICAL issues. If they actually hated America, the situation would be hopeless. But they love American values, freedom, democracy (look at polls in Arab countries) and most would like to immigrate and raise their children here. This means that their own children will be Americans.

In the Middle East, Arabs/Muslims are very welcoming and helpful to American residents, who are not held accountable for the actions of their government (if this is a surprise, ask anyone who has lived in the Arab World). This is contrary to the media image held by people who have not been there (violence, hatred). Extremists, who hate the entire West, are perhaps one percent. Many people sympathize with resentments against America's political policies, but they do not agree with violence (many Americans sympathize with anti-abortion groups but do not condone blowing up clinics, and in the name of Christianity to boot). Actual Islamic extremists are much like our White Aryans or neo-Nazis who oppose all who are not like them.

Here's a simple way to investigate this: ASK Arabs and Muslims in your community (they live in every community and blend in just fine) if they hate America. Or if they are angry at America, ask why. Commentators are always confident that they can explain how a group of people think (hatred of our religion, wealth, freedom, hatred going back centuries) or perhaps they need more information about us, or they're just crazy/evil/inscrutable. Disputes between Islam and the West during the Crusader era, or the Islamic conquest era, etc., have no relevance in modern people's thinking (do the Crusades shape our thinking today?).

I am an American who knows Arabic and hears, and/or overhears discussions going on around me. I travel widely in the Arab World. I am just reporting on what I have heard first-hand. Until our government realizes that the problem is political, we cannot begin to address responses to "anti-Americanism."

I couldn't even get past the introduction for this book. The first part of the intro discusses Anti-Americanism abroad, and the second part proceeds to discuss domestic sentiments. "Discuss" probably isn't the best word describe the junk printed in this book. Hollander's "discussion" of domestic anti-Americanism consists of simply quoting various people and labeling them as anti-American. Because these people disagreed with American policies and actions, they were smeared. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common response from conservatives--if anyone disagrees with policies, they are smeared and labeled as traitors or anti-Americans(see the reviewer below, who was promptly labeled as a "liberal blowhard" by another reviewer). In actuality, it is extremely American to question the government, to disagree with it, to protest. As Americans, we have a responsibility to question our leaders, not blindly follow them. I was hoping that this book would provide an objective, educational view on the issue of anti-Americanism. However, the introduction proved to be quite slanted, and I don't think that any of the material in the rest of the book would provide me with the objectivity I was looking for. Paul Hollander had and opportunity to put together a book that would educate the public, whether they were red or blue, and unfortunately, he botched it. I would not recommend this book to anyone.

Don't be an Apologist for Evil.
Although well written, this book does not deserve to be read. The arguments expressed in this book are part of an effort by the neo-conservative right in the USA to bring some sort of intellectual support for their fascist policy. The editor is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute which is a premier conservative think tank. Understand first that this think tank belongs to a family of other millionaire endowments to fund a new era of conservatism, which we are now experiencing. It was just a matter of time for a book like this to make its appearance since these pseudo-scholars, apologists of the current power structure, have been attacking each form of challenge to the types of regimes embodied by the Bush administration. This new one, Anti-Americanism abroad, has been now categorized as a cultural development outside of our borders that can be summarized in these words "pathological envy towards USA success." While reading this book I could not stay calm and peaceful. The way it diminish the suffering and anger of those at the other end of capitalism and Americanism was simply pathetic.

To come up with intellectual arguments for oppression is nothing new. In the 16th Century one of the leading intellectuals of Europe came with the strongest logical defense for the conquest of the natives in the Americas. Juan Ginés de Sepulveda, an Aristotle scholar, presented very persuasive arguments to support the way the Europeans were treating the American natives, while on the other side of the argument was Bartolome de las Casas, protecting not the rights of the rich and greedy, but defending the rights of the natives. Las Casas had lived with the natives, have seen the injustices that the Europeans had done to them, and had changed his own ways to become a defender of the underdog. Sepulveda had never crossed the Atlantic and did not care for the wellbeing of non-Europeans that he believed to be inferior. Sepulveda won the majority of the opinions in Europe; no wonder, because it defended their status quo. Yet, today he is remembered as the pig that used scholarship to defend evil.

Today Paul Hollander stands in the same tradition as Sepulveda. He has not lived with the poor in the poor countries. He had never had trash as his regular diet. He has never know what is to be uprooted, taken up to the maquiladoras, raped by the managers paid by international corporations who make the cheap TVs we enjoy in the US, and been stuck FOREVER in such a condition of despair with no way out. He has never tried to lead a nation out of the status of "under-developed," using the neo-liberal policies stipulated by the USA. By the way, no poor country has ever been able to come up from such a status using these neo-liberal policies.

It is very easy for us living in the richest nations of the world to create all kinds of arguments as to why other people are mad at us. We can use parts of anthropological researches and paradigms (like they do in this book), making sure that those elements of compassion now present in most anthropological works are out, and create the most logical and convincing arguments as to why the underdog is mad! Look at these arguments: "They are mad because they have become used to complain to the point that it is already part of their culture and way of living and thinking." "Complaining against the USA help them forget about their problem, so it is a cheap way to blame the other instead of finding a way out on their own."

If you care for the wellbeing of this world, don't read this book if you don't want to be mad too. If you want to understand the arguments of the neo-conservative right in order to counter them and know what the majority of the blind voters in the US are thinking, then read it, but do it with some sort of escape-valve so you can survive and not die of a heart attack. If you are in doubt, and really want to understand what those who are complaining about USA policy abroad, look for authors like Juyan Zhang from the Washington Observer weekly, and authors with a deep understanding of the world like Rosemary Foot, S. Neil MacFarlane, Michael Mastanduno, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri.

Avoid triumphalist historians and scholars who write the type of history and political books that make the comfortable feel more relaxed and justified. Think seriously and be brave to look at the real world behind the curtain-the world the matrix does not want you to see. Just then you would be compelled to take steps to change that world. On the meantime, you will seat down in your comfy chair pitying those less fortunate than you who live outside of our borders, but thinking that after all they deserve their condition. [...]