A Primer on Transatlantic Relations
by Lee
NOTE: This post turned out to be about ten times longer than I had originally planned. You might want to grab a soda or go to the can before you begin, this is probably the longest post I’ve ever written.
I had a thought occur to me yesterday, and I’ve been pondering it ever since. The more I think about it, the more I think there might be something to this. Now, before I begin, let me explicitly state for the record that I am going to be speaking in generalizations here. Every one of us will be able to come up with specific examples to refute these generalizations, but I think that there are enough obvious trends to merit discussion. A couple of days ago I wrote:
This is why this torture issue has me so bothered. It’s not that I have sympathy for terrorists or any of that other nonsense. It’s that for 58 years America and the rest of the civilized world have spoken clearly with one voice as far as what is acceptable. Whether or not you happen to agree with the specifics of this agreement is immaterial. The important aspect is that the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, the UN Declaraton on Human Rights, and other similar treaties and agreements establish a common baseline, a standard agreement among civilized people, on how everyone should act. This is leading by example.
My thought—and, admittedly I have no real data to back this up, it’s just my personal viewpoint—is that the more you interact with foreigners, the more you care what they think. And the less interaction you have with the people and societies outside the United States, the less you care what they think. And this goes for Europeans, too.
It is an unquestioned fact that, by and large, Americans don’t travel around the world as much as people from other places. Elitist Eurosnobs like to think that this is a sign of their superior culture, but the fact of the matter is that it’s one of geographical necessity. America is so big and so varied that we have everything you want. No matter what type of climate, no matter what type of activity you wish to engage in, you can find it in America. From skiing and mountain climbing to the hottest deserts to gambling to sport fishing and everything in between, America’s diversity makes it so that there’s no real need to travel overseas, unless you’re going there specifically to experience another culture. This is not so in Europe, which has countries that function in a very similar way to US states. In America we travel between the states; in Europe this same amount of travel is technically “international.” With most countries in Europe having a distinct language and culture from its neighbor, people there are inherently exposed to different viewpoints.
So, where do Europeans get their views on Americans? From movies and TV. The greatest export that America makes is popular culture. It doesn’t matter where you are in the world, people are watching American films and television and listening to American music. How much does this affect their opinion of us? When I was young I spent my 4th through 6th grade years living in Stavanger, Norway. At the time Dallas was the most popular TV show in the world. Many Norwegians were under the impression that, in America, everyone lived on ranches, wore cowboy hats, and drank booze out of crystal decanters. The modern view is that America is a violent place full of gun-toting crazies and racist rednecks, where the Bloods and the Crips patrol the darkened streets looking for victims. And why do they think this? Because this is what our popular culture exposes them to: cop shows, gangsta rap, and war movies. Conversely, America views popular culture as something to be exported, never imported. The BBC shows American television shows all the time, as do stations in all countries in the world. When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country? I can’t think of one. Any foreign TV that we see in this country is on a cable network. We really are not exposed to any foreign culture in the same manner that American culture is foisted on Europeans, often times at the expense of their own.
The other place the world learns about Americans is from American tourists. Allow me to state this in no uncertain terms: there is no such thing in the world more obnoxious than an American tourist. Having lived in Europe and traveled all around the world, American tourists stick out like a turd in a punch bowl. They are loud, bossy, and expect everything to be done in the American manner to which they are accustomed. For example, food portions in Europe are much smaller than they are here. I have heard, with my own ears, American tourists in a nice restaurant complain that their portion of food was too small and not worth the price. The fact that this portion of food at this price was perfectly acceptable to everyone else in the restaurant was immaterial, it was that it wasn’t identical to what they were used to and thus felt slighted. The fact that there might have been 30 other Americans eating in that restaurant who were not bothered by the portion is also immaterial, the image that will stick in everyone’s mind is of the Yank yammering on about how, “Why, back home in America…”
In the 80s I saw a comedian on British TV make a joke about this. He described a situation where an American was given a British apple to eat. “You call that an apple?” the American remarked. “Why, back home in America we have apples that are the size of a softball.” “Well, you see,” came the response, “we only grow them big enough to fit our mouths.”
Consider the stereotype of French people being rude. As anyone who has been to France can tell you, there is a large element of truth to this. But are French people really more rude? When you go to a foreign country, what foreigners do you generally interact with? Hotel employees, tour guides, waiters, and cab drivers. Are you really getting a representative sample of French people as a whole? When I was working in software years ago I had to go to demo at Apple Expo Paris. A couple of guys from our Paris office decided to take me out for a night of “real” French cuisine. We went into a restaurant in a building that was about 300 years old. It was in the basement, and there were only about eight tables in the whole place. It was a real hole in the wall, something that would never be on any tourist guidebook. My two French hosts did all the ordering, and when the food came I set about sampling the fare. Because of how small the room was, and because of how I was dressed, it was obvious that I was American and I was sampling (and loving) French food. Other diners in the restaurant actually offered to let me try some of their food. “If your friend likes that, he will find this rabbit stew absolutely delicious.” “Please, try one of these sausages.” I’ve never forgotten that night. When the French were presented with an American who was not ridiculing their culture or pronouncing the superiority of the American way, who was actually enjoying what France had to offer, they were some of the friendliest people I have ever met. But the guy who worked behind the desk at the hotel? Total dickhead.
If you go to New York City to see the sights, are you going to meet any actual New Yorkers? Of course not, you’re going to meet other tourists. I was standing in line to go into the Tower of London once and I heard nothing but American accents. So the tourists deal with the hotel people, and find them to be rude and jaded. The hotel people deal with the tourists, and find them to be loud and obnoxious and quick to complain. Do you see how both sides form mistaken impressions of each other?
As I wrote the other day, there is a tendency among Americans to view the American way as being the “right” way simply by virtue of it being American. Europeans have the same attitude about their culture and views. And just like both sides believe in their own righteousness, there is a growing tendency to view the opposite opinion as being wrong simply by virtue of it being from the opposition. In other words, if the Europeans think something is a good idea, this in and of itself, is evidence of its wrongness, irrespective of the merits of the European viewpoint. Shortly after the London subway bombings I coined a term, Reductio ad Bushium, based upon the logical fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum.
What the British and European people have been deluding themselves with is sort of an inverted “reductio ad Bushium,” in that if Bush believes something then it must be inherently wrong, thus the opposite must be supported. Therefore when Bush says that terrorism is a global threat and the western world has not done enough to be proactive in fighting it, the “reductio ad Bushium” argument dictates that anyone who supports this belief therefore supports Bush. Because of the palpable hatred of Bush, societal pressures have forced a lot of people to willfully ignore the threat of radical Islamism, lest they be seen by their peers as somehow being a gullible, willing pawn in Bush’s nefarious quest for global fascist hegemony. By portraying Bush as alternately a mindless chimp, a puppet whose strings are being pulled by his overlords in the military/industrial complex, or a fascist dictator, it has made it so much easier for so many people to ignore the validity of his underlying message.
Now, while there have always been significant differences between the United States and Europe, we have so much shared history and culture that it is inevitable that we would be generally allied and share common goals. During the Cold War, Europe was instrumental in deterring the Soviet Union by allowing the United States to garrison troops and install nuclear weapons on their territory. This brought out massive protests from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), such as this one in London which attracted 250,000 protesters. However, while there might have been opposition to specific American policies, there was not a general dislike of America. While Reagan might have been despised for his rhetoric, most Europeans grudgingly acknowledged that he was exactly the type of 800 lb. gorilla that was needed to defeat the USSR. At the time, the only power on earth able to be that gorilla was the United States. There was a stasis in American militarism and European pacifism that worked out nicely.
It is also worth exploring where this pacifist sentiment came from. World War II literally demolished the entire continent. Millions died. In the wake of the atrocities of the era, diplomatic organizations were created to try and deal with future problems, so as to avoid having to go through another devastating conflict. As America beefed up its military, Europe beefed up its social welfare systems and its reliance on diplomacy. The WWII generation had children, who were no doubt told of the unspeakable horrors that their parents had visited upon them. From birth they were essentially indoctrinated with the idea that war and conflict were something to be avoided at all costs.
Conversely, America was not destroyed during WWII. War was something that happened “over there.” No American cities were destroyed. There were no concentration camps set up in America, the Japanese internment camps notwithstanding. There was no refugee situation, where people lost everything, and whole families were wiped out. This is not to in any way diminish America sacrifices to WWII, which were significant, but on a personal and cultural level, America was relatively unscathed on the home front.
The Cold War was fought on two fronts, militarily and diplomatically. The military part was primarily handled by the Americans. The diplomatic efforts were through the UN. This symbiotic relationship was well-suited for the Cold War, where there was a common enemy. When the USSR fell, however, both sides drew different conclusions. The Americans admired Reagan’s steely resolve and unflinching weakness. The Europeans, however, tended to view it as a result of Gorbachev’s policies of perestroika and glasnost. America views it as a win for resolve, Europe views it as a win for compromise.
Throughout the Cold War, as Europe relied more and more on American military spending for its defense, it became less aware of the need for a military presence. America had the muscle, and it contributed significantly to the diplomacy, but everyone knew that America didn’t really need the diplomacy. If there was a WWIII it would be fought primarily between two great armies, the USA and the USSR. So while America viewed the diplomatic effort as optional, Europeans viewed it as essential, because they didn’t have the military option to fall back on. When it became obvious that their diplomacy was not going to work to stop the genocide in Kosovo, they had to once again turn to the 800 lb. gorilla to do the heavy lifting. In America, the general rule is that diplomacy should come first, but that the threat of military force is always there. In Europe, the rule is that diplomacy is really the only option, because for them it truly is.
If you are opposed to handgun ownership, it’s very easy to say, “I manage to live my life without a gun, why can’t everyone else?” This is, of course, shortsighted. In a similar manner, Europe says, “We manage to settle our differences without military force, why can’t the Americans?” In return, America says, “We’ve been dicking around with diplomacy for ages now, can we please just go in and solve this problem?”
Does this situation sound familiar to you?
Now that I’ve illustrated the dynamic at work, let’s look at how this relates to the war on terror and related issues. Consider that, prior to Bush, we had eight years of Bill Clinton. Look at it from a European perspective. The Cold War was won, and Europe wiped its hands and said, perhaps naively, that now we will have an era of peace, the “payoff” for their toleration of American militarism during the Cold War. We had in the 90s an era of prosperity and technological advancement. Economies boomed. During the period, President Clinton was warmly received by our continental cousins. And why not? He was an absolutely brilliant man, educated at Oxford. He was seen as rejecting the militarism of the Reagan and Bush eras, and he payed a great deal of deference to European opinion. In other words, he was exactly like I was in that French restaurant. Clinton didn’t belittle Europe, and when he promoted an American view he did so respectfully and diplomatically. If Europe was a restaurant, Clinton was being fed samples from every country’s table. They responded to him because he respected them and their traditions. He was a very European president.
Enter George W. Bush. As soon as he announced his candidacy, the stories began. He was a moron, despite somehow managing to graduate from Harvard and Yale. He was militaristic in a way not seen since the Cold War. He was a vocal proponent of American exceptionalism, of “the American Way.” He was a religious man, and a largely secular Europe did not respond well to that. In short, he was the literal opposite of Clinton. He was a very American president.
There was the 2000 election fiasco, in which Bush was largely perceived as having stolen the election. So, not only was he a gung-ho cowboy, he was illegitimate as well, which provided a justification for Europe’s visceral hatred of the man. It would be sort of like when a neighbor who you really like moves out, and in moves a complete asshole. He throws parties at all hours, blasts his stereo, doesn’t take care of his yard, and so on. You can’t do anything to make him leave, but you hate him at the same time. You’re forced to deal with him, which makes you resentful. This resent turns to anger and hatred. That’s how Europe feels about our president, the obnoxious asshole they can’t do anything about.
Now, think about the stereotype that Europeans have of Americans: loud, obnoxious assholes who are convinced that the American way is right. And who do we elect as our president? A loud, obnoxious asshole who is convinced that the American way is right.
Then 9/11 happened. Despite how people might choose to remember it today, there was a general outpouring of sympathy from Europe. They’ve been suffering from war and terrorism and destruction for years. It’s a part of their collective psyche. From their point of view, the last haven of real safety on the planet—America—had just been violated. Now we would experience what they have. Of course, when you consider what they have lost over the years due to war and terrorism, 3,000 people is a relatively low number. From their point of view, we had just gotten a taste of the European experience.
From our viewpoint, however, this was brand new. There is no tradition of war being meted out on our shores. We didn’t lose any cities during WWII. Terrorists haven’t been detonating bombs in our subway systems since the 1960s. We never had to deal with the IRA or Black September or the Red Brigades or any of the other terrorist groups which Europe has been fighting for decades. This experience was totally foreign to our collective psyche. We were outraged at this offense against our homeland, and we responded exactly the way the 800 lb. gorilla acts when you poke him with a stick.
While there was, of course, a howl of opposition from the pacifist anti-American wing of the European population, there was virtual uniformity among all nations that the United States was going to strike back, and that this would be perfectly justified. When we went in to Afghanistan, the nations of the civilized world gladly joined in. NATO gave us its full backing. For all the differences between the United States and Europe, there was still a bedrock of similarities and shared values and customs.
Then Bush talked about Iraq. From the European standpoint, they said, “Huh? You were attacked by terrorists who trained in Afghanistan. You lost 3,000 people which, while tragic, isn’t the end of the world in the grand scheme of things. You’ll rebuild and go on just like we have done. So how can you possibly use 9/11 as justification for invading a country which had nothing to do with it?” What did we do in response? We told them to shove it up their ass. We said that their diplomatic traditions were stupid and weak, that their pacifist tendencies were not appropriate for the post-9/11 world, that they just “didn’t understand” terrorism, and that we didn’t give a shit what they thought—we were going to do whatever the hell we wanted, because we were America.
The 800 lb. gorilla had somehow gotten out of its cage. And here a vitally important point comes into play. They already had a negative stereotype about Americans, and now were not only forced to deal with a president who not only was the living embodiment of this stereotype, but who was acting exactly the way the stereotype said he should. Whereas Clinton was sitting in the restaurant sampling delicious French food, Bush charged in wearing boots and a cowboy hat, yelled that their food sucked, and told them that if they knew what was good for them they’d all start eating McDonalds. George W. Bush is the literal embodiment of the stereotype of the ugly American. Therefore, by extrapolation, the actions of George W. Bush became completely intertwined with the image of America. If you hate Bush, then you hate America.
Now comes the torture issue. In light of all that I have written above, allow me to requote the text from the beginning of this paragraph.
This is why this torture issue has me so bothered. It’s not that I have sympathy for terrorists or any of that other nonsense. It’s that for 58 years America and the rest of the civilized world have spoken clearly with one voice as far as what is acceptable. Whether or not you happen to agree with the specifics of this agreement is immaterial. The important aspect is that the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, the UN Declaraton on Human Rights, and other similar treaties and agreements establish a common baseline, a standard agreement among civilized people, on how everyone should act. This is leading by example.
These treaties and organizations and agreements are the literal bedrock upon which the EuroAmerican alliance is built. They state that, no matter what our disagreements may be on politics, we have created a set of standards to codify these shared values. They are, in the minds of Europeans, inviolable. Why? Because, in the European psyche, in their collective consciousness, they still remember the atrocities of WWII. Even today there are reminders everywhere. The death camps, the rusting wrecks from the D-Day invasion off the coast of Luc-sur-mer, the craters in the countryside; all these provide a very real, very tangible link to a horrific past. The Geneva Conventions were created by the very generation who lived through these atrocities as a direct result of the atrocities themselves. As the Europeans rebuilt their shattered continent, they enacted these rules so that it would never happen to them again.
Now, George W. Bush has come along and, using parliamentary tricks and legal loopholes, is weakening the very bedrock upon which European peace and security is based.
Americans view European diplomacy as weakness which will virtually guarantee more bloodshed. Europeans view American militarism and total lack of respect for their political and diplomatic institutions as something that could one day unleash a new wave of atrocities and violence upon them. This has turned out to be true. There were the bombings in London and Spain, the bombs planted on the trains in Germany, the recent London airline plot, and so on. Every one of these happened in Europe. Number of American domestic terrorist attacks: zero. So, in a very real way, we’re fighting the war and they’re paying the price. It was a war they wanted no part of to begin with, but have been sucked in anyway. George W. Bush’s America has made modern Europe less secure.
The point of this long post was to detail European attitudes towards these issues, because unless you had the benefit (as I did) of growing up all around the world and being immersed in these cultures and attitudes you would have absolutely no reason to really know what foreigners think. From our standpoint we’re just nudging these rules a teensy weensy bit to enable us to smack around a few terrorists. From their standpoint, we’re making it more likely that WWIII will be unleashed.
Why should we care what they think of us? Allow me to give you an illustration from the Cold War. During the 1980s our president was a conservative icon, Ronald Reagan. France’s president was Francois Mitterand, a Socialist. You couldn’t have two men whose views were more diametrically opposed to each other, but they had one thing in common—they both understood the need to defeat the Soviet Union, and they both knew that the way Reagan and Thatcher were going about it was the right one. Even though there was a significant amount of anti-American sentiment in Europe at the time because of the nuclear weapons issue, most European leaders were willing to stand up to their people and say, “This is something we need to do. We have to stand tough, together, and win this war.” Whether the people were emotionally with the United States, intellectually they knew that it was in their best interests to do so. And they did.
What has Bush done? He led the coalition of the willing into war in Iraq to rid the world of Saddam’s WMD. European political support for this gambit was lukewarm at best; European popular support for the man waging it was even lower. Whereas European leaders had an often-grudging respect for Reagan and his policies and thus placed their trust in the United States, they have absolutely no faith in our president or our country. He, and by extension we, are despised. European leaders were willing to defy their people to support the United States, but they are not willing to do so to support George W. Bush. No matter how righteous his cause may be, the principle of Reductio ad Bushium comes into play—if Bush thinks it’s a good idea, then it must be bad. Look at what happened to Tony Blair as a result of his decision to support us. The same goes for Spain. That’s the warning to every other European leader—support us and die politically.
When I say that there are bigger issues at stake than just torture, this is what I mean. Our “slight tweak” to these conventions is, to Europe, the most grave attack on their way of life since Adolf Hitler destroyed their continent. We have to look at it from their point of view. What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in totality, the right to smack around prisoners is worth the cost in terms of our international prestige.
These laws are sacrosanct to Europeans because they are the only means of caging an 800 lb. gorilla. When the gorilla gets free to do as the gorilla wishes, there is no telling what mayhem will result. In the European psyche, the memories of the last bout of mayhem are all too real and all to personal. We have to respect that. In the America vs. Islam world, we have two 800 lb. gorillas who might go at full war with each other. And guess which part of the world will feel the brunt of that battle: Europe.
The point I want to close on is this: I believe that the people most likely (like me) to oppose changing these conventions are the people who have the most experience in an international context. Note that this does NOT imply any kind of moral or intellectual superiority on my part, it is simply stating a fact. When you have virtually no experience with Europeans, or if your only experience was the jerk working the front desk at your hotel, then you are less likely to view Europe as someone who should be viewed as an equal. This does not mean that we need to kowtow to Europe’s demands. Reagan sure as hell didn’t. However, we could take a number of pages from Bill Clinton’s attitude towards diplomacy, because the way Bush does things has made the whole world hate us.
Comments
What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in totality, the right to smack around prisoners is worth the cost in terms of our international prestige.
That pretty much sums up my take on the whole torture debacle. Is it worth all the trouble?
Brilliant post Lee. Have some thoughts of my own as a European who has spent quite a lot of time in the US.
Firstly, on the travelling thing. There are actually a lot of Americans who do travel. I have done lots of backpacking and it seems a universal rule that when you go backpacking there will always be a Brit, an American, A Canadian (with a canadian flag on their backpack) and Aussie and some other European. I don’t think I have ever stayed anywhere without this combination! For people who actual “travel” I think Americans are actually highly represented. What may be less so is that Americans are less likely to go on European holidays, for brief visits of a country. Instead, as you say, you go from state to state, Colorado to ski, Hawaii for the beack, Vegas etc. You don’t experience any real difference in culture on these trips (ok, there is some in Hawaii but heavily touristified) and miss out.
The BBC shows American television shows all the time, as do stations in all countries in the world. When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country? I can’t think of one. Any foreign TV that we see in this country is on a cable network. We really are not exposed to any foreign culture in the same manner that American culture is exposed to Europeans.
Some of the sterotypes I hear when I come to the US are hysterical, especially the ones based around Austin Powers. Americans also seem to have no idea who the Brits in their tv shows even are, that people believe Hugh Laurie from “House” is American still astounds me.
Still, the sterotypes in the UK of Americans exist, and I have to say I still suffer some of them even as someone who has spent quite a bit of time in the US. When I was in Japan I met an American girl who was gay, a vegeterian and a democrat. She also lived in Texas and loved it there. This I found an amazing contradiction and just go to show how my sterotype of Texas is completly out of whack with reality.
As America beefed up its military, Europe beefed up its social welfare systems and its reliance on diplomacy.
This is such an important point. This is one of the major reasons for the EU. Can you even imagine a US state having a war with another state? Of course not. This is, to my mind, the most important aim of the EU. For countries so economically and politically linked, war is impossible. Could France and Germany go to war? Absolutly not, the idea is now absurd - yet in the last 90 years they have fought against each other in the two biggest wars in the history of the world. This is *monumental* progress, European’s response to WW2 has worked, conclusivly.
Enter George W. Bush. As soon as he announced his candidacy, the stories began. He was a moron, despite somehow managing to graduate from Harvard and Yale. He was militaristic in a way not seen since the Cold War. He was a vocal proponent of American exceptionalism, of “the American Way.” He was a religious man, and a largely secular Europe did not respond well to that. In short, he was the literal opposite of Clinton. He was a very American president.
You have to be careful here, Europe is in a lot of places very religious, more so than America. Italy for example is still a very catholic country, restrictions on Abortion in ireland (and even contraception) would perhaps surprise you. Britain is most likely the least religous of countries and discussion of religion is very rarely accepted at all in the political sphere but this istn’t to say there are not a lot of religious people in Britain, there are.
The differences to me seem clear. In Europe religion is a personal issue. It’s not a political issue in the way it is in the US. Also, there are not “religious pundits” like there are in the US who say the most stupid things. There is not the money involved in religion in the same way either, religion is not run as a business like it seems to be in so many of the mega churches. This may make religion look less prevalent in Europe but I don’t think it is.
We said that their diplomatic traditions were stupid and weak, that their pacifist tendencies were not appropriate for the post-9/11 world, that they just “didn’t understand” terrorism, and that we didn’t give a shit what they thought—we were going to do whatever the hell we wanted, because we were America.
It was worse than this. The “With us or against us” comment I think was the start of the unravelling. Them comes “freedom fries” in Congress. Politicans insulting all French people etc.
Therefore, by extrapolation, the actions of George W. Bush became completely intertwined with the image of America. If you hate Bush, then you hate America.
Here I think you are very wrong. I have never met a European that can’t seperate their opinions of Bush (almost universally negative) with their view of America and Americans. I have never seen anyone rude to an individual American because they where an American. Come to Europe and express your love of Bush and sure, you may get some abuse back - but this is because of your opinion of Bush, not because you are an American.
There is anti-Americanism of course, but again I still think this is a directed a lot at the political class, the superiority of these people and how they act on the national stage. I think Europeans maybe think Americans are a little dim witted for voting Bush in, but again I think a lot understand Americans don’t really get a huge amount of choice these days in who they elect with the name recognition and money needed to run for President.
These treaties and organizations and agreements are the literal bedrock upon which the EuroAmerican alliance is built. They state that, no matter what our disagreements may be on politics, we have created a set of standards to codify these shared values. They are, in the minds of Europeans, inviolable.
This is also important, and has been a bone of contention for a number of reasons:
- Free trade agreements not honoured by America. The steel issue with the UK was annoying. Canadians are pissed about lumber etc. America seems quite happy to ignore trade committments when they so decide
- Land mines treaty opposition
- Death penalty for children (this has finally changed though now right?) along with only two other countries I believe
- Kyoto
- International Court
- Undermining the UN
The list goes on. The rest of the world sees the US using all these treaties and neogitiations to gain advatnage for the US. The rest of the world sees these treaties and obligations as costs, but things that are important to improve the world.
What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in totality, the right to smack around prisoners is worth the cost in terms of our international prestige.
So completly true.
You also have to remember that prestige is an important military tool. Its harder to get people to try and kill US soldiers and citizens when they believe these people are good / honourable people. When they are shown reports of torture and their President won’t even condemn this, it makes it a little easier to find people prepared to kill Americans.
I hear you, having spent quite a bit of time in Europe, but frankly I think German tourists can be even worse. And a lot of Europeans, especially in Mediterranean areas where Germans like to vacation, will agree.
Germans reserving all the best chairs by the pool is a bone of contention with most! But it sums up Germans perfectly, they are organised and disciplined, so they get up early and remember to reserve the beds before breakfast!
When I was in Japan I met an American girl who was gay, a vegeterian and a democrat. She also lived in Texas and loved it there. This I found an amazing contradiction and just go to show how my sterotype of Texas is completly out of whack with reality.
Dallas, I bet.....
Very few people in Dallas are actually from Texas. I remember when we lived there several years ago. We attended a Christmas party at the home of some neighbors. Everyone sat around bad-mouthing and making fun of Texans. Hubby and I just sat there, feeling very uncomfortable and out of place.
(Sorry - off subject, I know).
I thought at first, Padders, that you had met my niece. She spent a year in Japan a few years ago, and your description fit her to a tee, except the gay part. :)
Yup, Dallas :)
It was this year I was in Japan so wouldn’t have met your niece :)
(oh how on Earth did she survive being a Vegetarian in Japan for a year, that really can’t have been easy - unless she eat’s fish that is). They put fish/meat in everything there, I wonder if they even have a word for vegetarian :)
When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country?
The corporation for Public Broadcasting reaches all areas of the country and has programming from all over the world.
I have said all along that our inability to be reflective will be our undoing. One can’t even speculate out loud why 9/11 happened or any of the other terroist events in Europe or the rest of the world. “They hate our freedoms” is as far as you can take it. Surely there is more to it than that. Most people aren’t interested in reflecting on our place in the world and how we are perceived by others. I predict you are going to have your rhetorical ass handed to you over this post. I hope I’m wrong but I doubt it.
She may not be a strict vegetarian. But, if they have coke (the soda) and potato chips, she would manage just fine....
The “With us or against us” comment I think was the start of the unravelling. Them comes “freedom fries” in Congress. Politicans insulting all French people etc.
If I was an American, I would have been deeply ashamed when this was all going on.
What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in totality, the right to smack around prisoners is worth the cost in terms of our international prestige.
Don’t forget that it takes years to build a reputation, but it can be lost in an instant.
Lee, it seems to me that you’ve grown while writing this blog. I couldn’t have imagined you writing posts this sensible when I first started reading your blog.
I suspect there are quite a few gay vegetarian Democrats in the Austin, TX area ...
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
(Serious question. Not being tacky)
It was worse than this. The “With us or against us” comment I think was the start of the unravelling. Them comes “freedom fries” in Congress. Politicans insulting all French people etc.
So it wasn’t Iraq alone then, it was just a few days after 9/11. Nice.
Here’s the actual full quote.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
You really have a problem with this? It’s basically saying either you harbor terrorists or you don’t. Sorry we we’re so demanding. After all, we’re the real terrorist in the eyes of so many. Whatever.
I suspect there are quite a few gay vegetarian Democrats in the Austin, TX area ...
Yes. Absolutely. But are they native Texans?
My niece that I mentioned is a UT grad. But then, so is my son-in-law....
The “freedom fries” were so stupid, and so totally embarrassing.....
If I was an American, I would have been deeply ashamed when this was all going on.
If I was an American, I would have been deeply ashamed when this was all going on.
Why shouldn’t we? We should be ashamed of everything. Why we love it when just a few weeks after the attacks we start reading polls that 9/11 was at least partially our fault. We love to hear about our kids being booed at a hockey game in Canada (and yes, I know they’re not part of Europe), among other things. Our flags being burned, mass protests, and I can go on and on about it, but hey, you guys don’t do any of that stuff. You’re just too intellectual. When I read your post Lee, it started getting me thinking, and thought it was right on in many respects, but of course the same usual fuckheads jump right on the ‘You should be ashamed of yourself.’ bandwagon. Not to mention that France was some innocent victim here. Even though I didn’t agree with going into Iraq, and have stated it a million times, their tactics were just plain insulting.
but of course the same usual fuckheads jump right on the ‘You should be ashamed of yourself.’ bandwagon.
I never said that you should, just that I would have been (and it seems that RepMom agrees with me).
We love to hear about our kids being booed at a hockey game in Canada (and yes, I know they’re not part of Europe), among other things. Our flags being burned, mass protests, and I can go on and on about it, but hey, you guys don’t do any of that stuff.
Nor did I say that any of that stuff was not shameful. You seem to be under the impression that I’m trying to prove Europe’s superiority when I’m not. I’m just saying that the anti-French stuff was supid - which it was.
So it wasn’t Iraq alone then, it was just a few days after 9/11. Nice.
Here’s the actual full quote.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
You really have a problem with this? It’s basically saying either you harbor terrorists or you don’t. Sorry we we’re so demanding. After all, we’re the real terrorist in the eyes of so many. Whatever.
You are right, its usage there is not offensive. What became offensive when this language was used regarding Iraq (often by implication I accept)
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
(Serious question. Not being tacky)
Do you really think these people killed themselves and thousands of others because they hate American freedoms? What does that even mean?
You can explain the actions of these people in lots of ways and the likely answer is there are a whole host of reasons as to why the acted in the way they did. When people make big decisions there are often a multitude of factors that led them to it. Simplifying their motives with a stupid slogan is not helpful.
Nor did I say that any of that stuff was not shameful. You seem to be under the impression that I’m trying to prove Europe’s superiority when I’m not. I’m just saying that the anti-French stuff was supid - which it was.
This reminded me of one point I wanted to make. I think Europeans generally are much more self-critical. The British are constantly taking, as well call it “the piss out of themselves”. Other European countries do this as well.
Can you imagine TV shows such as “Little Britain” appearing in a US format. Sorry that few of you will have seen this.
Lee, it seems to me that you’ve grown while writing this blog. I couldn’t have imagined you writing posts this sensible when I first started reading your blog.
One of the things I like about blogging is that you are constantly forced to defend your beliefs. If you find you can’t defend them, and intellectually honest person will confront that reality.
I wouldn’t say my opinion has changed, at least on this issue. Let me put it this way. When the Abu Ghraib photos came out I, like everyone else, spoke ill of the people in the photographs. America doesn’t treat people like this, therefore this has to be just one rogue unit which got out of control. But then the other stories came to light. Initially they were all denied, but they were subsequently shown to be true. So it’s hard to defend this president against the latest allegation when the vast majority of the past allegations were accurate, despite the administration’s claims to the contrary.
As I’ve said before, I think that there are certain privileges which come with power. As the world’s lone superpower, the United States has the ability to defy convention and custom if it chooses. This is an awesome power, and the responsibility necessary for wielding it cannot be understated.
We wanted international consensus over Iraq. We couldn’t get it. We created the coalition. Up to this point I’m with them. I supported telling the rest of the world to fuck off because, like everyone else, we all knew that Saddam had warehouses full of this shit. After we got into Iraq, the news cameras would be there to show soldiers ripping open the doors to bunkers full of the world’s most deadly weapons. Once we had that justification, the Europeans would be cowed into admitting they were wrong.
The problem is that, no matter what intel led to the war or what our assumptions were, we were wrong. That cannot be denied.
But, still, I was willing to cut the president some slack. He’s got the most difficulty job in the world, and I was more than willing to accept that sometimes mistakes happen. But there is a condition on my willingness to forgive, and that is the person takes steps to make sure that the mistakes don’t happen again.
I have not seen George W. Bush the slightest bit interested in evaluating what went wrong. His only interest is in continuing his same flawed plan out of some sense of consistency. This isn’t steely-eyed resolve, it’s abject fucking weakness.
Now he wants to weaken the Geneva Conventions. I’m not some kind of Kerry-eque internationalist, and I certainly don’t think that the United States should be beholden to the whims of the rest of the world. The Kyoto Accord is a good example. The world loves it, but it’s a completely worthless treaty, and as such the US is completely right to stay out of it. But the Geneva Conventions are a completely different story. This gets right to the heart of civilization versus barbarity. The GCs are an extension of our civility, even towards the most evil members of humanity.
I think there’s a big, big difference between having a rule in place and occasionally finding it necessary to break it, and engaging in a widespread flaunting of the rule, all the while using trickery to try to pretend that you’re still following it.
If Bush said that, hey, I felt it was appropriate to authorize coercive techniques on Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, I’d be able to live with that. But there’s a far cry from that and wanting to routinely abuse prisoners on the *hopes* that they might confess to something useful.
To get back to the point I made earlier about being forced to justify your beliefs, this is why I continually asked Drumwaster to factually defend his argument that torture yielded superior results to regular interrogation. I provided copious examples of knowledgeable people showing why this was false. So, whether or not anyone else agreed with me, nobody could say that I couldn’t factually and rhetorically back up my thesis.
Drumwaster could not, and he got pissed off because he was backed into a corner and knew he had two options, admit he was wrong or try to intimidate me. He chose the latter.
I think it’s vitally important to question your beliefs. This is why I read liberal blogs, never watch Fox News, and subscribe to three different magazines: National Review (conservative), The New Republic (liberal), and Reason (libertarian). If you can’t defend your views, then you really have no right to them in the first place.
I thought the “freedom fries” were silly and embarrassing, but I had no problem with the “with us or against us” comment.
And I will admit that I stopped buying any French wines. Plenty of other wines out there to purchase.
But, still, I was willing to cut the president some slack. He’s got the most difficulty job in the world, and I was more than willing to accept that sometimes mistakes happen. But there is a condition on my willingness to forgive, and that is the person takes steps to make sure that the mistakes don’t happen again.
There is another aspect here. Can you imagine the US press / pundits had the weapons been found. They would have expected personal apologies from Chirac etc.
There has not been any contrition from Bush. I think the best he could come up with was making jokes about finding the WMDs under some chairs and tables.
Lee, you really should subscribe to the Economist. I think you would like quite a lot of it although there is definitely enough in there to make you question some of your beliefs. Not sure where I would put it on a political spectrum though.
Nor did I say that any of that stuff was not shameful. You seem to be under the impression that I’m trying to prove Europe’s superiority when I’m not. I’m just saying that the anti-French stuff was supid - which it was.
Gotcha. My apologies then. I guess diplomacy does work. ...with reasonable people anyhow :)
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
(Serious question. Not being tacky)
Do you really think these people killed themselves and thousands of others because they hate American freedoms? What does that even mean?
You can explain the actions of these people in lots of ways and the likely answer is there are a whole host of reasons as to why the acted in the way they did. When people make big decisions there are often a multitude of factors that led them to it. Simplifying their motives with a stupid slogan is not helpful.
So, why did they kill themselves and others? List some reasons for me. You and beano are making general statements, but nothing specific. If there were a whole lot of reasons for 9/11, surely you can come up with one or two....
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
My opinion doesn’t matter. I just think it is striking that their has been no national discussion about it. It is blown off with “they hate our freedoms”. No one seems willing to examine if there is anything we can do for ourselves to mitigate the damage while we are fighting this WOT. An energy policy would be nice, for example.
On this whole diplomacy thing. I have often wondered what would happen if everyone from here met in the real world. Would we leave disagreeing with each other more or actually realising that we probably don’t have as different opinions as we may think.
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
My opinion doesn’t matter.
What do you mean “my opinion doesn’t matter”? That’s what this blog is all about - opinions.
Can you imagine TV shows such as “Little Britain” appearing in a US format. Sorry that few of you will have seen this.
Quite frankly yes I can.
Gotcha. My apologies then.
No need to apologise, it can be very hard to work out the intentions of what people say when you only get to see it typed out on a screen.
I think it’s vitally important to question your beliefs. This is why I read liberal blogs, never watch Fox News, and subscribe to three different magazines: National Review (conservative), The New Republic (liberal), and Reason (libertarian). If you can’t defend your views, then you really have no right to them in the first place.
And it’s to your credit. I think that there is nothing worse than when people only read news and opinion from sources that reinforce their world view, though I’m sure we are all guilty of that to some degree.
What do you mean “my opinion doesn’t matter”? That’s what this blog is all about - opinions.
My opinion doesn’t matter because that is not the point I was trying to make. You will not goad me into an argument so near dinnertime. :-)
My opinion doesn’t matter because that is not the point I was trying to make. You will not goad me into an argument so near dinnertime. :-)
Ok, you can write what you think after dinner.
On this whole diplomacy thing. I have often wondered what would happen if everyone from here met in the real world. Would we leave disagreeing with each other more or actually realising that we probably don’t have as different opinions as we may think.
That’d be cool if we could all meet someday, but I have a face made for blogging.
My opinion doesn’t matter because that is not the point I was trying to make. You will not goad me into an argument so near dinnertime. :-)
Hey, no excuse. I was trying to get dinner ready AND keep up with this discussion. :)
Enjoy your dinner, then, as Section 8 says, tell us what you think while you have your after-dinner coffee…
That’d be cool if we could all meet someday, but I have a face made for blogging.
Just be sure to give me plenty of warning, so that I have time to color the hair and knock off a few pounds.......
color the hair
We would disagree on spelling though. As far as I’m concerned: our language, our rules.
What did I spell incorrectly? Color?
On this whole diplomacy thing. I have often wondered what would happen if everyone from here met in the real world. Would we leave disagreeing with each other more or actually realising that we probably don’t have as different opinions as we may think.
That’d be cool if we could all meet someday, but I have a face made for blogging.
LOL me too… but i would keep my promise to buy Stogy a beer…
then argue with him…
At one time one of the illustrious libs here made a comment on how left leaning Americans travel more abroad, compared to their right wing counterparts… hmmmm if there is such a negative view of American tourists and such, i just wonder who is teh most responsible for that ... LOL
just saying.
At one time one of the illustrious libs here made a comment on how left leaning Americans travel more abroad, compared to their right wing counterparts… hmmmm if there is such a negative view of American tourists and such, i just wonder who is teh most responsible for that ... LOL
just saying.
Good one, Harley! :)
Harley,
Was that George, or Bob?
What did I spell incorrectly? Color?
Yep, we say “colour”
Harley,
Was that George, or Bob?
I dont remember who it was.
I very much enjoyed your essay, Lee. I’m not completely comfortable with the W characterization, but as it is set out in contrast to the Clinton characterization, I wouldn’t find it worth arguing about.
But, here’s what I DO have to say. Your points are well made up to this point in time, and as history has been written/lived.
What the Euros say AFTER one or more Euros have been beheaded with their hands behind their backs on put on videotape remains to be seen. And, it IS coming. The al Qaeda announced that a week or so back. That other countries were the next places to be hit. I’m guessing the beheadings as well as the bombings will take place, also.
But, maybe the bombings will be enough to convince the Euros that there is something not so wrong with W and that there is something not so right with diplomacy against the worldwide muslim revolution of violence in the name of converting all peoples to the religion of peace . . . or else.
But, maybe the bombings will be enough to convince the Euros that there is something not so wrong with W and that there is something not so right with diplomacy against the worldwide muslim revolution of violence in the name of converting all peoples to the religion of peace . . . or else.
No we willjsut hear anotehr round of “ITS AMERICAS FAULT!!”
But, maybe the bombings will be enough to convince the Euros that there is something not so wrong with W and that there is something not so right with diplomacy against the worldwide muslim revolution of violence in the name of converting all peoples to the religion of peace . . . or else.
Harley’s right. It’ll just be blamed on America and that evil George W. Bush....
I don’t think anything would convince them that there is something not so wrong with W.
OMG you Christ Punching Liberal!
Kidding.
Great post. Your longest ever, you said? But also maybe your best. My favorite, anyway.
Lee, you seem to have run into a lot more of the “ugly American” types than I, despite the fact that our foreign travels are fairly equivalent. I’d speculate that that may be because my travels were normally business and our tourists jaunts tended to be out-of-the-way things like flying to Dubrovnik and driving through Montenegro and Marathon to Athens. Not a lot of American tourists in Yugoslavia in 1982. I’ve always found I could identify Americans abroad by teeth, shoes, and altitude, not attitude.
On a more substantive note, it occurs to me that an important word was missing from your post: oil. I’m not one of those who believe that oil drives our foreign policy exclusively, but it certainly is an important determinate in how we see and deal with the rest of the world and how they see us. Given the reason for most of your time overseas, you should take that into account. We’ve done some pretty unpopular things in the world in the name of our gasoline supply.
No, sorry, it’s not “coming.” The rest of the world, including Europe, has lived with this kind of thing for decades. In just the immediate past: subway bombs in Madrid and London, the nightclub bombs in Bali, sarin in the Japanese subways, the heads of three Brits and a New Zealander in a bag near Grozny. I’d say you’ve substantiated Lee’s point about Americans not knowing much about the rest of the world.What the Euros say AFTER one or more Euros have been beheaded with their hands behind their backs on put on videotape remains to be seen. And, it IS coming. ... But, maybe the bombings will be enough to convince the Euros that there is something not so wrong with W
Given the reason for most of your time overseas, you should take that into account. We’ve done some pretty unpopular things in the world in the name of our gasoline supply.
Yup. I wonder how much difference to the world an extra $1 federal gas tax would have made. Probably quite a lot.
Of course Bush’s response was to increase spending, cut taxes and fight a war all at once.
What the Euros say AFTER one or more Euros have been beheaded with their hands behind their backs on put on videotape remains to be seen. And, it IS coming. The al Qaeda announced that a week or so back. That other countries were the next places to be hit. I’m guessing the beheadings as well as the bombings will take place, also.
At one time one of the illustrious libs here made a comment on how left leaning Americans travel more abroad, compared to their right wing counterparts… hmmmm if there is such a negative view of American tourists and such, i just wonder who is teh most responsible for that ... LOL
There’s no doubt about that. Every idiot “Long Island bitch” type I’ve met in my life (using a NY characterization of 20-something women with too much of daddy’s money, no real knowledge, and a huge list of demands upon the world at large) has also been a flaming liberal who thinks that life can accomodate their exorbitant wishes for free everything, no work, and carefree vegetarianism (denying themselves protein and iron without taking steps to do anything about it, then being shocked when the health consequences set in).
I’m sure there are rich conservative pricks out there, too, but I’d wager they spend a lot less facetime colliding with the “peasant folk” in foreign countries.
Given the reason for most of your time overseas, you should take that into account. We’ve done some pretty unpopular things in the world in the name of our gasoline supply.
Well, we’ve some pretty unpopular things in the world *that liberals claim* are in the name of our gasoline supply. Actually, mainly one.
If we were primarily concerned about our gasoline supply, it’d have made no sense to stop at Kuwait, and we would’ve blown the Ayatollah all to hell years ago.
“Yup. I wonder how much difference to the world an extra $1 federal gas tax would have made. Probably quite a lot.”
Other than making our poor people poorer and damaging American (and, by extension, global) economic growth, not much.
Consider cigarette taxes: They don’t actually tend to stop people from smoking, they just create a massive financial drain on heavy smokers, who are often low-income types and have decided that they are *going* to smoke.
In fact, Harvard studies have shown that many states now have a theoretical financial incentive to *encourage* smoking, since it means they get to keep the money and, if they’re lucky, the smoker who paid it will drop dead of cancer young, meaning they don’t have to support them as seniors. Not that there’s a direct analogy to gasoline, but the notion that taxation is an effective way to radically alter people’s lifestyle is assinine.
I have said all along that our inability to be reflective will be our undoing. One can’t even speculate out loud why 9/11 happened or any of the other terroist events in Europe or the rest of the world. “They hate our freedoms” is as far as you can take it. Surely there is more to it than that. Most people aren’t interested in reflecting on our place in the world and how we are perceived by others. I predict you are going to have your rhetorical ass handed to you over this post. I hope I’m wrong but I doubt it.
Beano, you’re one of the more rational left of center posters around here. However, more often than not, the reasons behind horrific events have very simple answers. It isn’t even as complicated as “They hate our freedoms.” Some people simply hate, period.
Virtually all of the Middle East lives in abject poverty by our standards. They have dictatorship/theocracy controlled media telling them constantly the west is responsible for stealing the wealth of their nations. Their governments tell them that we are stealing their wealth. Those same governments keep their people ignorant of the fact that wealth is created by the people. They still live in the dark age concept that wealth is a static concept. That you can only be richer by taking from another. When the only people really taking from the people of the Middle East are their rulers. These leaders are stealing every penny that the west gives them through trade or aid.
Add to that a culture which demands absolute religious submission, and the conclusion is ineluctable, certain extremists will want to kill us. At all costs.
Not a lot of American tourists in Yugoslavia in 1982.
Let me guess, you were over there designing the Yugo right?
The “freedom fries” were so stupid, and so totally embarrassing.....
Absolutely! I don’t know what we were thinking.
Would we leave disagreeing with each other more or actually realising that we probably don’t have as different opinions as we may think.
I must say that just talking with a European I would like them much better. Especially because I wouldn’t have to deal with their infuriating habit to put an “s” where there should be a “z.”
;-)
you were over there designing the Yugo right?
Nope, pure vacation. A week on the Dalmatian Coast (like California without people), a week driving through Montenegro and Greece (Meteora, Delphi), a week sailing around the Greek islands, and a week in Paris. We’re thinking of doing it again, much more slowly, but the Dubrovnik to Greece segment is a lot more problematic than it was when the communists were in charge. Maybe down the western shore to Brindisi, then the ferry to Greece.
I must say that just talking with a European I would like them much better.
This theory didn’t work with Quebecois for me. I just wanted to wring their little pencil necks.
My opinion doesn’t matter. I just think it is striking that their has been no national discussion about it. It is blown off with “they hate our freedoms”. No one seems willing to examine if there is anything we can do for ourselves to mitigate the damage while we are fighting this WOT. An energy policy would be nice, for example.
Some reasons for 9/11. US support of the Saudi royal family. US bases in the muslim holy land.
Things like this were talked about quite regularly after 9/11. It was not all “They hate our freedoms.” That line also comes about due to the wish to submit the world to Sharia Law, which has significantly fewer freedoms for peopl.
So much for no one willing to discuss the reasons huh?
We would disagree on spelling though. As far as I’m concerned: our language, our rules.
Borrowed from all over the place and mostly Germanic anyway.
Besides, when we did away with the king. We did away with the king’s English as well. Our way of speaking is just as valid as the worst of your cockneyed accents.
Fun historical quirk: When the country was formed, there was a debate over whether our official government language would be English, German (the language of a huge portion of the country’s immigrants, especially in Pennsylvania country), Greek (the language of knowledge) or Hebrew (the language of God).
Naturally, English won the debate.
US support of the Saudi royal family. US bases in the muslim holy land.
These are all frankly the same argument: “America is in the way of the expansion of Islam”.
Ask an Islamist. Read any of their speeches. That is why they hate us, because as long as we exist, and as long as our troops are out there (sorry, but “the middle east” is all collectively Muslim Holy Land, as are all countries that have ever been under Islamic rule), they cannot impose their will.
That’s not my speculation, that’s their own words, including Abu Bakir Bashir, Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, and that whacky British guy with the hook hand.
On a more substantive note, it occurs to me that an important word was missing from your post: oil. I’m not one of those who believe that oil drives our foreign policy exclusively, but it certainly is an important determinate in how we see and deal with the rest of the world and how they see us. Given the reason for most of your time overseas, you should take that into account. We’ve done some pretty unpopular things in the world in the name of our gasoline supply.
Yes, we do have our oil concerns in mind. However, if we were ONLY concerned about oil why on Earth wouldn’t be advocating for total appeasement of the Middle East and total free trade? We certainly wouldn’t be advocating boycots of certain Middle East countries would we?
However, if we were ONLY concerned about oil why on Earth wouldn’t be advocating for total appeasement of the Middle East and total free trade? We certainly wouldn’t be advocating boycots of certain Middle East countries would we?
As a matter of fact, threatening to refuse to sell oil was how Arab nations bought European cooperation (including arms sales) for their wars against Israel.
Leftists are always quite prepared to attach the oil argument to American actions, but always seem to reserve similar condemnation for Arab, French and Chinese actions.
However, if we were ONLY concerned about oil why on Earth wouldn’t be advocating for total appeasement of the Middle East and total free trade?
Because Saudi Arabia exists. And because our attitude and actions related to oil are irrational to the point of insanity (and have been for decades).
When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country? I can’t think of one.
Depends on if you count PBS as a major network. Sure it’s not CBS/NBC/ABC but it is available around most of the country. PBS used to play a lot of British shows at least. Thought that’s not all that much.
One of the best shows I’ve liked on TV in the last few years is British… MI-5 (Spooks in the UK).
Yes, we do have our oil concerns in mind. However, if we were ONLY concerned about oil why on Earth wouldn’t be advocating for total appeasement of the Middle East and total free trade? We certainly wouldn’t be advocating boycots of certain Middle East countries would we?
Not to mention the Persian gulf region only accounts for about 23%/24% of our foreign oil supply. Canada and Mexico alone provide more oil.
When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country? I can’t think of one.
Why would we? Our marketplace largely satisfies our demand for entertainment (though BBC America has been a reasonably popular cable channel in it’s own right), and foreign and independent film channels and theaters are out there for anybody who wants them. Most people simply don’t.
Hell, even Canada has to pass laws to *force* Canadians to be exposed to native Canadian entertainment, because without government intervention, they’d just as soon watch Malcolm in the Middle and the local market would shrivel up and die. The most hilarious scene is Liberal defenders of this tactic, who seem to really believe that the Canadian productions are original and “uniquely Canadian"… When, in fact, most of them are knockoffs of American formulas (just as some American productions are based on successful foreign models). Frankly, the subsidy probably just encourages bad product.
I hear you, having spent quite a bit of time in Europe, but frankly I think German tourists can be even worse. And a lot of Europeans, especially in Mediterranean areas where Germans like to vacation, will agree.
OK, now I’m going to go read the rest of this.