Is it racist to be anti-american?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 16 May 2005 14:13

I would place racism under the larger umbrella of ignorance. To be anti-american is ignorant, a superset of racism.

America is a collection of countries with their own values and cultures grouped together into small states which have entered into a contract to be a larger united state.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 16 May 2005 15:14

On the topic at hand - I think it's pretty obvious when you study history that nationalism (loving a country) has caused many many more wars than hating countries. Many wars happen because people irrationally love their country - very few happen because they hate another.

Loving a nation (To the extent of Nationalism) isn't possible without also hating other nations or races or religions ect... You need a comparision that you can claim to be far above.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 16 May 2005 17:31

Even by our flawed common-day notion of what race is, America (or the USA to be specific) is not a race. The USA is a 'legal' collection of people - for lack of a better term - not a genetic one.

So no it's not racist.

idain · Post by **idain** » 16 May 2005 17:45

Anti-Americanism (at least as far as hating Americans goes) may not be racist by the strictest definition, but it's just as irrational as racism: hating someone because of something he or she can't help. I can't help that I was born American, just as I can't help that I was born white. Hating the policies, on the other hand, is perfectly justified, and hating specific Americans is just as acceptable... but the broad stroke of hating all Americans has just as little base as hating all Arabs, Blacks, or Jews.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 May 2005 18:59

Delakong spoke about dictionary.com recently - here is what dictionary.com said the meaning was.

Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.

or

Opposed to the United States and its policies

"Anti-American" is a purely political expression. Charlie Chaplan was accused of being "Anti-American" and not allowed back into the country because he was also a socialist. Albert Einstein was often accused of being "Anti-American" and was investigated by the FBI who found he had connections with 34 socialist political groups. Rage Against The Machine were often called "Anti-American" and they called themselves that in some instances as well.

There are no people in the world who call themselves "anti-american" because they hate all the people who live in the US. It's a ridiculous statement that has no backing at all - I'm sure I tried to say this before and I don't really understand why people who live in the US don't seem to understand a word they've probably lived with their whole lives. If you go and read some of the stuff Osama Bin Ladin has written about the US - you'll see that even he doesn't fit into the definition of "anti-american" that has been described by pretty much every person from the US in this topic.

If you are "anti-american" it means you are opposed to the government of the United States of America. There is no part of that word that suggests "hate" - "anti" has always meant "opposed" or "against".

Politics is full of labels like that. I am "anti-logging" this doesn't mean I hate logging, or people who cut down trees or am opposed to cutting down trees in general. It specifically means in the context of the Tasmanian political environment that I am opposed to the current practice of cutting down trees in the biggest temperate rain forests in the world. It really means I'm opposed to the cutting down of trees in two specific places (The Styx and the Tarkine).

In Australia we have two main political parties - "The Australian Labor Party" and "The Liberal Party". Of those two parties, the Labor party has by far the most "liberal" policies to the extent that when you're talking about somebodies political views you have to say something like "they're pretty small l liberal" - if you don't add the "small l" into the statement it means something completely different.

My point here is that politics is full of words that don't mean exactly what they say - just like the people in politics I guess. "anti-american" is definitly one of those.

I call myself "anti-american" and have no problems with having that title. It means that I am opposed to most of the US government policy and to the cultural assimilation that is occuring around the world thanks to the US governement and US companies. "Anti-american" does not, and never has, have any reference to the people of the US.

This is by part what I said in my first post in this topic...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find that almost all people who complain about that (anti-americanism) are actually people who really have no understanding of what that means and are nationalistic to the point that it is very easy to compare them with other nationalistic groups - I'm sure some of you know what I'm talking about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be exaggerating in my last line of that but that sums it up pretty well.

By all means call yourselves "anti-Australian" if you are opposed to our government. I wouldn't find that offensive at all - and I doubt many Australians would. I do tend to think that the reason for you considering calling yourself "anti-Australian" is a bit silly but I'm sure there is at least one person who lives in Australia and think the US government is great (We call him "Little Johnny" or sometimes "monkey boy" or "that evil fucking bastard").

Anyway all labels are pretty meaningless - when somebody gives out a label you have to understand what it means - so you have to talk to the person and find out - they're just an easier way of saying something then giving the full answer. Don't take them literally - nothing in politics should be taken literally.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 16 May 2005 19:37

This topic got ruined in details pretty quick.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 May 2005 19:40

BainbridgeShred wrote: Loving a nation (To the extent of Nationalism) isn't possible without also hating other nations or races or religions ect... You need a comparision that you can claim to be far above.

The very obvious example is Japan in World War 2 - their invasions of the South Pacific had nothing to do with hate for Singapore, Indochina or really any of the other places they invaded - it was because of nationalistic pride (as well as other things of course).

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 16 May 2005 20:28

Nationalistic pride deals with the fact that your country (Meaning your populace and not your race/religion/creed ect) is superior to all others, and thus other country's populaces are above all others.

So when Japan started invading Indo-China and the Pacific islands, it had plenty to do with hate and a feeling of superiority. You can't make an army fight without first demonizing the enemy.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 May 2005 20:38

hmm. I guess you could look at it that way - I was more thinking in terms of the discussion that's going on here - ie more wars happen because people love their own country - then because they hate another particular country. ie. loving the US is more likely to cause a war than hating the US. Although really that kind of logic is a bit faulty - since it's hard to know what the connection is between nationalistic countries and war.

kester · Post by **kester** » 16 May 2005 23:00

Hmmm. Ironic that I spend most weekends teaching young people that the United States of America, government included, is not actually that bad. And then by asking a question regarding what people consider a race to be, I get attacked for being anti-american. You guys sure need to lighten up.

I think it's a cultural thing (and you can be of the same race but a different culture). But people getting fired up defending their country always cracks me up.

I would consider that you can determine a persons race by just looking at them. And as Americans have no real distinguishing features* that seperate them from say the British, or even Canadians (hell, as if a Canadian has never been mistaken for an American while on holidays) then it would be hard to define them as a race in themselves.

I don't think the question was misleading. I think you just focused on the wrong part. The key word was obviously "racist". If I'd asked: "Is it wrong/evil/not very nice/mean/whatever to be anti american" it would be a very different question. And especially with the second line "Or more to the point are people from the United States of America a race in themselves?" it pretty clear what I was actually asking.

*Except they're fatter, uglier and more stupid... <-- THIS IS A JOKE

(Joke disclaimer included for benefit of dumb Americans)

kester · Post by **kester** » 16 May 2005 23:34

Splint wrote:Kester all of a sudden joins in speaking in the most extreme way that Jeremy might

Hmm. Check my join date dude. Plus "Is it racist to be anti-american? Or more to the point are people from the United States of America a race in themselves?" doesn't seem all that extreme to me.

As for the topic at hand. No it's not racist to be anti-american...it's juvenile, stupid, and about as well thought out as terrorism. Being anti-american is like me being anti-australian. I hate the politics of Australia surrounding the Aboriginal tribes. That doesn't mean that I hate all Australians, nor that I'm anti-australian. It means that there are certain decisions that Australian leaders make and have made in the past that I disagree with.

So how would you suggest Australia change it's policies towards Aborigines? What exactly do you find wrong with our policies towards Aborigines?

I wouldn't consider "anti-americanism" to be "juvenile" or "stupid". Although, generalising about people who are anti-american is as silly as gerneralising about America.

Terrorism not well thought out? About as well thought out as any other violent action (and yes, that varies anywhere from not at all, to years of debate and planning).

So if you're going to be anti-american than you had better just expand your horizons and become anti-world, find a private island about 50 feet by 50 feet and form the "Independent Nation of Kester".

In Australia we have this concept called "freedom of expression" which means we're allowed to express our opinions on an issue without fear of prosecution. Basically we can sit around and complain about stuff and it doesn't give us any kind of obligation not to have anything to do with the things we're complaining about.

But I would also add that if I'm doing something wrong then it's not really that much of a bad thing if people tell me so (I might not listen) and being critical of other people or nations doesn't really mean you're anti "all people" or "all nations".

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 May 2005 08:18

Jeremy wrote:"Anti-American" is a purely political expression. .

Then why would one using the expression even ponder to themselves, let alone publicly, if the expressions was racist ?

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 17 May 2005 11:39

kester wrote:Hmmm. Ironic that I spend most weekends teaching young people that the United States of America, government included, is not actually that bad. And then by asking a question regarding what people consider a race to be, I get attacked for being anti-american. You guys sure need to lighten up.

(Joke disclaimer included for benefit of dumb Americans)

No.
You didn't ask a question about race and then get attacked for being anti-American. You asked a question about race with your previous signature reading:

The United States of America is the most retarded, evil country on the planet. The day the terrorists nuke it is a day the world will rejoice.

and THEN got attacked for being anti-American.

Regarding the Australian Governements policies toward the Aborigines. How about kidnapping Aboriginal children in a generational effort to breed them into "white people" followed by indentured servitude. Is it happening today, no, but certainly it was a policy whose effects are still lasting.
The US had a eugneics movement as well, as did Germany, as did many other countries.
What's my point? There is no perfect government, but they aren't the biggest problem. The biggest problem are people like you who apparently are teachers who propagate hatred through ignorance. You say that you "spend most weekends teaching young people that the United States of America...is not actually that bad", but it's not even something you believe. Everything else about you that can be gathered from your posts in this topic as well as your signature says that you are anti-american be it the people or the government.
AND if you "consider that you can determine a person's race by just looking at them" then you are in serious need of an education as to the multi-national political agenda connected to the erroneous nature of the term "race".

I had said

As for the topic at hand. No it's not racist to be anti-american...it's juvenile, stupid, and about as well thought out as terrorism.

I wasn't trying to generalize. I meant those things with regard to you and your views.

Regarding Freedom of Expression. You are aboslutely right that it's not such a bad thing if people tell you that you are wrong about the opinions you express. Whether or not you agree with those people, if you choose not to listen then you have closed yourself off to any sort of growth with regard to the thoughts and opinions of the people you surround yourself with.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 17 May 2005 13:26

at very LEAST its prejudiced to generalize about a group of people, making assumptions that some is unintelligent because they are from america.

sorin · Post by **sorin** » 17 May 2005 14:16

Getting back to the starting question:
No, you can't be rasist if being anti-american because there is nothing you could call an american race, at least from genetic point of view. And another thing, (correct me if i am wrong!) let's assume you are white, your gene code could be more similar to a black guy living in Zimbabwe than to your white next door neighbour, I don't believe in existance of races, just people with external differences, we are all same on the inside.

Being anti-american means disagreeing with american politics, way of life, influence on the rest of the world, etc.

The sig was a bit too much, you can't hate all those people for their government's acts,majority of americans are regular, nice people, who don't have the time or will to think other than what is served on TV, and that is their only crime.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 May 2005 16:29

Splint wrote:Regarding the Australian Governements policies toward the Aborigines. How about kidnapping Aboriginal children in a generational effort to breed them into "white people" followed by indentured servitude. Is it happening today, no, but certainly it was a policy whose effects are still lasting.

Sorry Brad to go off topic - but you're talking about something that finished 30 years ago. Yes it sucked and personally I think more needs to be done about it - but the real issues with Aboriginals in Australia now are things like ATSIC, health care, education and native title. I mean politicians have been trying to deal with the stolen generation for years now - I think it's a lot less black and white (no pun intended) then you make out. Also there are so many more relevant issues for reasons why you should hate Australia. I call myself "unaustralian" because of our refugee policy, our imperalism in the south pacific and because of our relationship with the US, I tend to think that these days both sides of politics are trying to solve the Aboriginal issues that we have although there is no way it's an issue that could be solved in the near future.

I'm an anti-american because of what I see happening now - I think much of the US' past sucks too - and I think it says a lot that the US seems to be making pretty much the same mistakes it's made in the past but different leaders and generations can't be blamed for what happened before them.

kester · Post by **kester** » 18 May 2005 00:23

splint wrote:Regarding the Australian Governements policies toward the Aborigines. How about kidnapping Aboriginal children in a generational effort to breed them into "white people" followed by indentured servitude. Is it happening today, no, but certainly it was a policy whose effects are still lasting.

In other words you don't know what you're talking about.

The US had a eugneics movement as well, as did Germany, as did many other countries.
What's my point? There is no perfect government, but they aren't the biggest problem. The biggest problem are people like you who apparently are teachers who propagate hatred through ignorance. You say that you "spend most weekends teaching young people that the United States of America...is not actually that bad", but it's not even something you believe. Everything else about you that can be gathered from your posts in this topic as well as your signature says that you are anti-american be it the people or the government.

Actually if you read my other posts and especially Jeremy's (the one where he points out that my signature was an actual joke), I think you'll find that I just like getting patriotic Americans angry. It's great that you think I'm the biggest problem the world has to face. I feel very flattered, but I kinda think that as nasty as I can be, I'm probably only influencing maybe ten people. So I'm probably not going to appear on the Ten Most Wanted list any time soon and nor should I. I definitely think that the USA is a better place than is sometimes made out and my brother and I have long and bitter discussion on this issue on a regular basis (he's some kind of leftie pinko greenie scum).

AND if you "consider that you can determine a person's race by just looking at them" then you are in serious need of an education as to the multi-national political agenda connected to the erroneous nature of the term "race".

Well I've got time. Why don't you educate me now. I'd like it if you could reference your reply.

I would "race" to be roughly the human equivilent of "breed" for dogs. It's a pretty widly accepted definition by the way. And obviously a person's race has no bearing on what kind of person they are.

I had said
As for the topic at hand. No it's not racist to be anti-american...it's juvenile, stupid, and about as well thought out as terrorism.
I wasn't trying to generalize. I meant those things with regard to you and your views.

Well then you should have made that clear. And if I was going to make accusations like that I'd probably base them on more than one line of text.

Regarding Freedom of Expression. You are aboslutely right that it's not such a bad thing if people tell you that you are wrong about the opinions you express. Whether or not you agree with those people, if you choose not to listen then you have closed yourself off to any sort of growth with regard to the thoughts and opinions of the people you surround yourself with.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that I don't have to take note of those complaints if I don't feel they are justified. And I think that's pretty fair.

delakong · Post by **delakong** » 18 May 2005 05:58

Brad wrote:AND if you "consider that you can determine a person's race by just looking at them" then you are in serious need of an education as to the multi-national political agenda connected to the erroneous nature of the term "race".

kester wrote:Well I've got time. Why don't you educate me now. I'd like it if you could reference your reply.

I would "race" to be roughly the human equivilent of "breed" for dogs. It's a pretty widly accepted definition by the way. And obviously a person's race has no bearing on what kind of person they are.

Here you go, from dictionary.com, for the second time:

delakong wrote:Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 18 May 2005 14:20

Pretty widly accepted definition ≠ Correct definition

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 May 2005 15:52

Who is AnaRkin Skywalker?

-n