The New Anti-Americanism – A British Perspective

News Abroad

Mr. Ayton is the author of The JFK Assassination: Dispelling the Myths (2002) and Questions Of Controversy: The Kennedy Brothers (2001). His new book, A Racial Crime – The Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, will be published in the United States by ArcheBooks in January 2005.

With the impending inauguration of President George W. Bush many pro-American Frenchmen and Englishmen are bracing themselves for yet another round of anti-American sentiments expressed by their countries’ left-wing elites. Out of all the nations that make up the European Union it is Britain and France that harbor the most virulent of critics who believe the United States is, once more, steering a unilateralist path to Armageddon.

Although Tony Blair remains a popular Prime Minister there is a substantial minority in his party, mainly grassroots activists, who distrust and dislike him for his pro-American positions and his moderate Labour policies. Many resent the way in which his political life is heavily influenced by his Christian faith.

This small, but effective group of opinion-makers from the worlds of politics, entertainment, academia, the arts and the media (aided by their counterparts within the United States, eager to show the world Americans are not the xenophobic hyper-patriots they are portrayed in Europe) have reduced America to a nineteenth-century cartoon-like status - a monolith grasping at world dominance and empire. Few give a balanced opinion. Nearly all of the critics excuse the 9/11 attacks by implying the United States brought about the situation by its failure to give the Arab world its due respect.

During anti-war demonstrations in Britain left-wing marchers have unashamedly waved banners defending known terrorists, shouted abuse at American tourists and British pro-American supporters and described George Bush in terms usually reserved for serial killers. Banners decrying the attacks of 9/11 were nowhere to be seen. When Daniel Pearl was murdered there was no outcry from the left in Britain. Instead, leftist and liberal commentators concentrated their critical faculties on the treatment of Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Gauntanamo.

Anti-Americanism in Europe is not a new phenomenon, although the present strain is more venomous in character and is embraced by the far left and far right equally. And it is a myth that the new resurgence of anti-Americanism began when George Bush invaded Iraq. It originated shortly after America was attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists. Following a "honeymoon period" when the world grieved with every American, opinion-makers in Britain and France decided that America should accept some blame for the tragedy.

Many Britons in the 1960s blamed the United States for risking a nuclear holocaust. During the Vietnam War many students used the anti-war marches to propagate Mao-style communism whose vocabulary was not far removed from that of present-day Iran in calling the United States the greatest evil in the world. Anti-Americanism has always been vicious and irrational but today it is masquerading as legitimate political discourse, quickly becoming the global ideology of the age.

The new strain of anti-Americanism in Britain is also fuelled by a gradual disconnecting from American popular culture. Post Second World War generations in Britain looked to the United States as their "closest relative." The links were forged by television documentaries delineating a common history and American popular culture. Cinema and television westerns were especially popular in Britain and delivered a central theme of America’s basic values and decency. Now that position has been usurped as the youth of Britain turn to Australia as the land of opportunity and success. These sentiments have been reflected in the British media, which has established close links with that country, and in the way Australian soap imports have been a favorite with young people for over two decades. Others decry the United States because they want to forge closer links with Europe.

Anti-Americanism has its roots in British and French inherited complexes when the United States stepped in to save Europe from Nazism. As former leading world powers the idea that they had been usurped was difficult for many to accept. This resentment took root as the United States began to dominate the world scene economically, politically and culturally. It led many to blindly embrace Soviet communism as the answer to the world’s ills. It also provoked the European left to characterise America as imperialist and to classify Soviet empire building as philanthropic. In France the graves of American soldiers who died on the Normandy beaches became nothing but an embarrassment to French socialists. America’s support for Israel provoked anger in France’s anti-semitic far-right political parties.

Paradoxically this has occurred following a long tradition of American beneficence in the twentieth century. America saved Europe from totalitarianism in two world wars. It prevented the economic collapse of Britain and many other European nations through the essentially altruistic Marshall Plan. Americans confronted and defeated a barbaric ideology – communism – which was the foundation for the entry of formerly oppressed nations under Soviet control to European partnership. When Ronald Reagan gave his "Empire of Evil" speech the left in Europe sneered. Yet less than a decade later they had to come to terms with the expression of joy from Eastern European citizens when the Soviet Empire collapsed. America was responsible for the liberalization of Chinese communism. It helped Britain eject Argentina from the Falklands and it joined with Britain in preventing genocide in the Balkans. Without the intelligence gathering capacity and military power of the United States today’s war on terror would collapse

America saved Mexico from economic collapse in 1995 and dissuaded China from attacking Taiwan. It has successfully intervened in disputes between India and Pakistan, North and South Korea, the UK Government and the IRA. And George Bush is the first American president to unequivocally state that Palestinians have a right to their own nation. American force will always be used to fight tyranny throughout the world especially when it threatens American interests. However, unlike European colonialism of the past, there is no desire to build an American Empire.

Anti-Americanism in Britain has been blinded by its own propaganda which posits that America is run for the benefit of the rich at the expense of the poor – a judgement which ignores the reality of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It also promotes the idea that American education and culture is pathetically myopic. A number of critics have confessed they have never visited the United States yet feel qualified to sit in judgement unaware that the educational provision of thirty or so American universities put Oxford and Cambridge to shame. The left also seems to be unaware that the highest numbers of Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Americans. In the modern arts – including film, urban architecture, popular music and comedy – America is pre-eminent. The country hosts over 1700 symphony orchestras. In the more traditional forms such as the novel the achievements of leading American writers dwarf their European competitors. Accusations by the European left that Americans are a philistine people seem ridiculous when set beside their museum attendance, more than seven million visitors per year, and the quality of their literary, historical and political magazines. American freedom of the press is unequalled throughout the world and citizen access to government documents under its freedom of information laws is envied throughout Europe. American advances in medical science have saved millions of lives.

Most anti-Americanism in Europe reflects the worries about "imperialism" and "dominance" without positing any rational alternative, except for the belief that rational discourse with dictators around the world will bring an end to famine, civil wars and territorial expansion. Anti-Americanism is about accepting the idea that the United States is not sincere about fighting terrorism or exporting democratic ideals. Instead, according to arguments propagated by many intelligent Europeans, the United States is devoid of any restraints imposed by a rival superpower therefore it has become bent on securing its power at any cost to the stability of sovereign nations.

According to Europeans who hold these views America never had any real motive in spreading freedom or democracy – this was simply a cloak to hide an oil grab or a manipulation of the world order to support Zionism. They accuse the United States of being no different from a despotic regime trampling over the rights of weaker nations.

This onslaught of Americaphobia is rarely challenged. The reasons are varied. Some media commentators, including BBC journalists, seem to be imbued with the idea that Britain and France are politically and culturally superior and that every issue is morally relative. Others create the impression that all Americans are either narrow-minded Christians or materialistic hedonists. A cultural superiority pervades the French print and visual media.

Anti-American sentiment does not engender any alternatives to what the American government poses in the way of foreign policy – its modus operandi is simply to spread the word that the United States is the moral equivalent to the Islamo-fascism it is trying to defeat. It recites its propaganda to summon up every American failure of the past fifty years without mentioning the nation’s successes. In its hatred of the United States the European left find excuses for the wickedness of Saddam Hussein and the evil philosophy and cruelty of Muslim fundamentalist terror groups. Some pro-Arab intellectuals/celebrities like Vanessa Redgrave have even proposed that Al Qaeda prisoners stand as parliamentary candidates in the forthcoming British general election. Labour MP George Galloway, who was an admirer of Saddam Hussein, has disseminated the idea that Iraqi terrorists have every right to kill the "American invaders."

Anti-Americanism is particularly expressed in public debates about the Middle East conflict. The left portray the United States as bent on crushing the rights of Palestinians, humiliating Arab nations and waging a war against Muslims. Facts are rarely introduced to support their arguments. Rarely have these arbiters of political correctness mentioned how American soldiers have died defending the interests and security of Muslims in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. They also fail to mention that America has given as much foreign aid to Jordan and Egypt as they have to Israel. Nor do they provide the real reason why the state of Israel arose, which was a reaction to European anti-semitism, not the manipulations of American governments. America also waited patiently for 11 years as Saddam Hussein ignored UN resolutions and rejected a unilateralist answer to the terrorist threat by persuading dozens of countries to join in an effort to rid the world of Al Qaeda and its associates.

In Britain politicians on the left, blinded by their anti-American sentiments, no longer remind their audiences of the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its struggle to defend itself against a hostile Arab world. The anti-American left in Britain is also naive in its belief that the Al Qaeda attacks resulted from U.S. support for Israel. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

We are never reminded by the leftists that Israel is the only democratic nation in a sea of dictatorships and oligarchies. During public debates leftist politicians (which includes some moderate liberals) always qualify their condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombers by making reference to Israel’s attacks on Palestinian communities - as if the rooting out of terrorists which sometimes creates civilian casualties has some kind of moral equivalence to the deliberate targeting of innocent men, women and children. Nor do they mention the joyful Palestinian response to the 9/11 attacks or how Arab states have, for over fifty years, rejected the integration of Palestinian Arabs into their societies. We hear nothing of how Arab nations have never really wanted an Israeli/Palestinian settlement. It was simply never on their agenda as the Palestinian "problem" always furthered their interests in ridding the Middle East of Zionists and "Jew Beasts." We also hear nothing of the real reason why the Arab/Israeli conflict has endured – the brainwashing of Palestinian schoolchildren through educational systems that propagate the idea that Jews are less than human and that it is the duty of all Palestinians to kill Jewish men, women and children.

America has made mistakes, sometimes criminally so, and no country deserves to be defended uncritically. America is not without sin as the history of the U.S. Civil Rights movement and the War in Vietnam testify to. Yet it should be remembered that France’s colonial experience in Algeria and Britain’s colonial past do not lend themselves to sympathetic treatment either. Leftwing articles, critical of America’s treatment of African-Americans and the slavery heritage, rarely remind readers that it was European ships that brought the slaves to America. And America has, arguably, a better record of assimilating immigrants than either France or Britain. Muslims in Britain, for example, live in isolated communities. Many have resisted efforts to bring them into full citizenship with a common allegiance to the nation and its culture.

There are some things in the United States that Europeans find distasteful in comparison with the subtle and low-key sensibilities of the English and French. However, in the main, most British holiday-makers return to these shores delighted at the hospitality, generosity and optimism of most Americans they have met. They are also in awe at the way Americans rightly defend their values of patriotism, equal justice and community spirit and the way their high energy is infused into everything from entertainment, sports, work and creativity.

The new strain of Anti-Americanism in Europe has damaged the Atlantic alliance and can only encourage America to pursue a unilateralist answer to common world problems. It is therefore incumbent upon moderates in Europe to vocally reject Anti-Americanism’s empty rhetoric – a rhetoric that is essentially prejudicial in nature and devoid of any rationality.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Despite the author's half-baked obfuscation, there is a huge difference between longstanding anti-Americanism (sometimes justified, more often not) and the general disdain, shared by intelligent observers in America and around the world, for the incompetent arrogance of the current corrupt leaders of the U.S. federal government. If, however, oil were the only reason for the foolish invasion of last year, and the horribly bungled occupation since, it would not have happened. Chickenhawks like Rumsfeld would be still be kissing Saddam's rear as they did in the 1980s.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

I agree that the Republican hypocrite half-wits running (and ruining) America are neither succeeding in establishing nor even attempting to create an overseas "empire" in the usual sense of the world. Empire-building is not compatible with the ignorance, myopia, and laziness endemic in the "Red" states that support the phony foreign policy of Rove et al. Simply fooling "all the people some of the time" (e.g. after Sept. 11, 2001) and some of the people all the time (especially on Nov. 2, 2004) amounts to neither statesmanship nor empire-creation, and is certainly not synonymous with the "spreading of freedom". Contrary to Mr. Heuisler's ill-informed bravado, there was no sudden burst of freedom in England in 1783 or 1815, the Barbary coast in 1805, Mexico in 1848, Spain in 1898, or Iraq in 1991, and the "freedom" given to Hitler in 1918 is nothing to brag about. There was, furthermore, nothing "reactive" about the premeditated (and yet still badly botched) conquest of Iraq last year.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Heuisler (49516): "Each country we've defeated in war has received more freedom, not less, as a result."

Clarke (49528): "Contrary to Mr. Heuisler's ill-informed bravado, there was no sudden burst of freedom in England in 1783 or 1815, the Barbary coast in 1805, Mexico in 1848, Spain in 1898, or Iraq in 1991."

Heuisler (49533): "With the exception of Iraq and Mexico we did not conquer and occupy those other countries you mentioned. We did achieve freedom from George III and from piracy."

Like the chickenhawk crooked traitors who did Osmas's bidding by leading us into disaster in Iraq, and for whom he propagandizes here, Heuisler will never admit making to a stupid blunder.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

If you want to play games with definitions, you might argue that the most insidious empire is the one currently presided over by convicted monopolist Bill Gates.

Of course, any great sovereign power projects that power, and in a age of globalization and human imperfectibility that means a degree of "imperial" control. But, imperial ambition has little do with Bush's flip flop reversal from no "nation-building" and a "humble" foreign policy to his preposterous fantasy of pre-emptive war. The "neo-cons" may have imperial ambitions, but they lack imperial credibility and will be remembered for the mother of the "cakewalks" that never happened.

The article which this thread should be addressing concerns so-called anti-Americanism, not imperialism. The point to bear in mind in considering "why do they hate us ?" is that "they" don't. "They" hate the ignorance of 60 odd million of us last November 2.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007


I am not for a moment going to defend the crooked Cheney-Bush administration's ostrich-like policies on energy, global climate change, and environmental sustainability, but it seems to me you have cause and effect rather backwards. Oil has been probably the second most important factor behind Bush's family wealth (after government connections/subsidies), however Cheney&Bush have had relatively less important impacts on oil consumption or production. Certainly they have no hope of ever "controlling" it. Not even OPEC can do that.

Furthermore, you do not mention what surely must be a major (I would say THE major) motive for the rush to invade Iraq in 2003: the need to gain the electoral legitimacy that neither Papa Bush had in 1988 (running mainly on Reagan's legacy) nor Junior Bush in 2000 (when the Supreme Court selected him), and the Rovian strategy of W running as a "war president" in 2004 in order to successfully dupe enough voters in key swing states to achieve that electoral legitimacy.

I think Hans Blix put it most accurately: oil was the main reason for the 1991 Iraq war, but it was not a significant reason for the 2003 invasion.

Indirectly, of course, the 1991 war led to the 2003 war, and oil remains relevant to the long historical trajectory of the region, in any case. There are many more critical factors specifically behind the 2003 war, however. Check out Woodward's book for starters.

After 1991, restoring the oil flow was a key priority for the swiftly victorious multilateral coalition, oil revenues were used to recoup the cost of the war (or at least pay reparations to Kuwait, whose oil reserves had trigged Saddam's invasion), and the price of oil dropped (thus sustaining America's long term addiction for example). This time around, oil fields were hardly an issue in the fighting, there were no massive oil field fires, no oil slicks in the Gulf, no oil revenues expropriated afterwards, and the global price of oil has gone up (encouraging thoughts of conservation and alternative sources), as the failed unilateral American conquers have been bogged down in a morass largely caused by the incompetency of their leaders.

The “no blood for oil” mantra has been among the more misguided slogans of the utterly ineffectual and kneejerk “antiwar” “movement” over the past two and a half years.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"History" rarely "argues" any such simplistic monocausality as "our intentions were always to deliver...the amplest Liberty of self- government" to the Philippines. The leading spokesman for annexation in the U.S. Senate at the time, Albert Beveridge, certainly suggested -in his remarks- that other motives were at work:

"The power that rules the Pacific...rules the world. And, with the Phillipines, that power is and will forever be the American Republic...Savage blood, Oriental blood, Malay blood, Spanish example -are these the elements of self-government ?...God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No ! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns."

Fellow Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, a few years earlier: "We should take all the outlying territory necessary to our own defense...Without sea power no nation has been really great. Sea power consists, in the first place, of a proper navy and a proper fleet; but in order to sustain a navy we must have suitable posts for naval stations, strong places where a navy can be protected and refurbished".

- Zimmerman, "First Great Triumph", pp. 150-52,346-48.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

I notice that the conversation often turns to semantics when illogic and lack of knowledge of history are exposed.

Use the phrase "bellicose coward", if you prefer more old-fashioned language to the more succinct term "chickenhawk". Rumsfeld and Cheney, prime exemplars of the species and principal architects of the Iraq folly, have also proven to be self-deluded flip-flopping incompetents & are probably traitors and corporate criminals as well, but it is their readiness to send young men to die for phony causes -when they were unwilling to do the same in their time- which is their most glaring hypocrisy.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

RE: "going back 100 years"

No celebrations from me re the disastrous fanatics running Washington D.C. these days. A hundred years ago we had a (Republican) president who defended our natural resources rather than letting crooked exploiters pillage them, who fought monopolies instead of coddling them, who restricted corporate special interest money in politics instead of feeding on it, who was unafraid of grizzly bears or anything else, and who embraced reason, intellect, and learning instead of fawningly and myopically kowtowing to the laziest and most ignorant of America's voters. He also happened to be admired and respected around the world. All of this is 180 degrees from the childish clowns in power today. It is true that TR was an imperialist, but at least he had the guts and self-respect to actually fight in the war he helped start, which was, of course, a stupendous and glorious success compared to the bellicose cowards' deceptive and hypocritical Iraq fiasco.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

My views on the "blood for oil" misconception have been expressed on this page already, including the now reiterated point that there were cheaper ways to get that oil than via Wolfowitz's bungled invasion marketed to gullible American voters using trickery. But opposing this, the greatest American foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, is hardly "anti-American". Saddam did not get all his nasty toys (sold to him by the likes of the Bushes and Rumsfeld and their crooked corporate buddies) by paying for them with palm fronds.

raymond william hall - 8/22/2007

i dont for one momment consider myself antiamerican but your comments were a bit saintly to say the least ,america my not be building a empire by milatary force as the powers of old ,but it is building one through globilisation , which to me takes ordinary people rights away as govenments including britain allow market forces to run rough shot over working conditions etc , mainly to take more money away from ordinary people , and further enhance the lives of a few rich people at our expense ,most business aquisitions appear to me even if the buyer is non american , it soons seems to have to become american dominated to be accepted, capitlism now seems to me through globalisation to be make peoples working lives harder make and them work longer , with a detriment to there health ,and by the way dont think i am for one momment a mindless leftwing trot the ones that are slowly destroying britain from within,another comment i see is that migraints coming to britain dont integrat so well , its not us on the whole most of them come here to get what they can out of a soft hand out government that now exsists in britain ,i think more than any other democracy the people in charge are doing evrything possible to change britain into a european multi culteral heaven as they see it, against the majority of opinion , multiculterlism has never worked ,if i were american i would give a bit of thought to what britain will become in the future,as vast amounts of imigrants come here many harbouring the same resentments as some have towards you.there are now to many here , as for the other things iread you /we were right to go into iraq , it amazes me how the people that are against the invasion seem to forget the thousand s of people saddam hussein had killed before this any way i hope

andy mahan - 9/18/2006

When you are the biggest and baddest on the block, yet benevolent and democratic enough to actually concern yourself with the wishes of those less powerful, you're bound to have a bunch of envious malcontents. Just part of the territory. The author accurately and precisely described the geopolitical circumstances of the US as irrationally perceived by it's detractors. A+++ Today I honestly believe that many Europeans acutually resent America for it's role in WWII and for it's hegamony during the cold war. Though pleased to be freed from the threat of USSR attack, many Europeans resent having to look to the Great America for protection.

andy mahan - 9/18/2006

Would a deluded fool cite 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed by US troops without credible support for the acusation? Or would that just be a product of one that is staunchly anti-american?

andy mahan - 9/18/2006

Exactly Mr. Heuisler,
The intentionally sloppy misuse of the word “empire” is at fault. The US has no interest in assuming ruling governmental power over other states. That is unqualifiedly NOT in the interests of America. Currently, the use of "empire" is intended to be inflammatory but quickly fails the reasonability test. Is the G-8 in the process of an economic transition toward greater globalization? Certainly. Does that infer American empire building? Far from it as empires have been defined through history.

andy mahan - 9/18/2006

I suspect you are not interested but if you took the time to read the methodology of the Lancet study you would find that the study is a joke. The study was set up to come up with the bogus results that it did. The samples were not representative, the responses were prejudiced by the interviewers, much of the data was imputed, there was no body count, the count was based exclusively on the word of those interviewed with no verification of the numbers, and on and on and on. This is why only the most anti Bush and anti American partisans cite it. No reasonable source will do so.

andy mahan - 9/18/2006

The methodology of the study itself. Read it.

andy mahan - 9/18/2006

Maybe in your partisan delusional perception but don't be offended if those that know better don't buy the propaganda.

andy mahan - 9/18/2006

Puhleez. The medal and the bogus idea that we WANT to assume ruling govt power over Iraq are unrelated. We don't want to control Iraq. We just don't want Saddam calling the shots. I suspect that if we could have located a 30 caliber bullet to his left temple we would have taken that approach instead.

andy mahan - 9/18/2006

Are you serious? What's with all the intensity? Anyway,I DON'T have a source for casualties nor deaths. Unlike you I recognize the reality and make no assertion at all when conversly, you are willing to accept any politically motivated study to stand in for ignorance. Why wouldn't you just say you don't know than to advance some crap? Forget it, I know.

Julia no Heb - 5/19/2005

French perspective: (excuse my English)

I found this article very ineteresting because the ideas exposed are unusual. I am presently writing a thesis on Anti Americansim since 9/11 in France. And I am currently looking for articles on this topic.

It s very hard to find articles or essais very objective on the question, and I think that once again, on some points, this article is not objective.
Every time I read something defending the USA and criticizing the anti american propaganda it tends to be pro-american or pro-capitalist or anti-communist.Things are not that easy.

I pretty much agree that there is a propaganda against the Americans, I also agree that the media are not objective and are drawing a portrait of Americans that is completely false. I would also say that it helps a lot the heads of our countries justifying their decision “We are the good ones!”. More and more, politicians use people’s basic instincts, appealing to people’s feelings and moral values instead of explaining the real political issues. It is something I find hateful but it really works.

But for the feeling of anti-americanism of citizens from different countries, we should not generalize because the media deals about it a lot, a few things have to be taken into account:

1/ There’s a psychological aspect: The fear of seing an americanization of our culture
This comes from the fact that we identify to a group which recognizes us, it’s a natural feeling which comes at small or larger scale.

2/ There’s a link to patriotism and how people interpret patriotism

3/ There’s the importance of the culture of the different countries: though American and European cultures are not that different, we have different ways of doing things which usually lead to misunderstandings. (there’s a lot of interesting books, very funny by the way, on French and American differences)

5/ there’s the historical context.

Which strikes me is this obsession the media has against Americans and the way European leaders (right or left in France) symplify every issue that concerns the US so as to make you feel rather than think. But I read “l’obsession anti-américaine” by Jean François Revel, I thought that he was over-symplifying the anti american obsession as well.

When I did some researches 2 years ago for my thesis on American patriotism I found a paper that the department of the army published in Washington DC on August 31,1979 on “propaganda technics”, it explained how to improve a propaganda and it make me think of our present situation wether in the US or in Europe, I’ll give you a few points of this paper:

1/ Self content evident
2/Additional information required to be recognized
3/ appeal to authorities...
4/ Assertion (implying that what is stated is self evident and needs no further proof)
5/ Vagueness
6/ Rationalization
7/ Simplification
8/Transfer (to project positive or negative qualities of a person, entity object or value –individual – groups – organization – nation – patriotism )

I think that these kind of technics can be noticed in the media and in politicians discourses (at least in France) And I notice it in Bush’s discourses as well.
Maybe Anti american is on Fashion, but Anti French was as well at a time in the USA.
When the USA claims that France defends anti-semitism, French say the USA are pro Israel.

It seems like an old war on moral values in which everybody tries to prove he’s better than the other...
To reassure you, I conducted an interview on French citizens, (not over yet) but most of them think a little more than that, there’s no “good vs Evil” they see things with an objective eye and are able to expose their disagreements with the US foreign policy and to explain why they disagree, without thinking that all Americans are bad or that the entire American system should be thrown in the garbage. I think that we all tend to generalize and to simplify French or American or British’s view on certain issues but it is more complex than that.

I have dual nationality: French and American and as a French and American citizen I see the good and the bad of both politics and values but I do love both countries and cultures.
French had colonnies and still do a lot of bad things in Africa and American are imperialist capitalists. When it comes to anti americanism in France or anti french in the US I would not generalize and argue which country is better that the the other, they both have their faults.

That is why I wanted to make a few comments on what has been said to give a different perspective on things:

“Few give a balanced opinion. Nearly all of the critics excuse the 9/11 attacks by implying the United States brought about the situation by its failure to give the Arab world its due respect.”

A lot of French people cried in front of their TV and the American ambassy’s door were full of flowers but they did not really appreciate Bush’s reaction to the attack.

“During anti-war demonstrations in Britain left-wing marchers have unashamedly waved banners defending known terrorists, shouted abuse at American tourists and British pro-American supporters and described George Bush in terms usually reserved for serial killers. Banners decrying the attacks of 9/11 were nowhere to be seen.”

The banners decrying the atatcks had nothing to do there. They were demonstrations against a War. The justification for this war was the arms of mass destruction but there was no proof of their existence and they have never been found. You cannot launch a war on presemptions, when Bush said wether you are with us or against us it was thought (in France) as a blow to freedom of ideas, it is not because we disagreed on this war that we were taking the side of the terrorists.

Inside the US country, the patriot act (largely contested by US citizens) let the right to the governemnent to watch what you write in your emails, to check what you read at the library, they can get info on eveything you do. People were scared to show dissent, some professors were arrested for what they said in their classes....
As you say the resurgence of Anti Americanism began shorlty after 9/11, but why? When everyboby sympathized of the tragic event, why did they eventually change their mind?
Because they did not like Bush’s reply to terrorism. Understandable.

In France the graves of American soldiers who died on the Normandy beaches became nothing but an embarrassment to French socialists. America’s support for Israel provoked anger in France’s anti-semitic far-right political parties.

Graves of American soldiers are not an embarassment to most french people. It is not to people smart enough to think of what the American have done for us on the Normandy’s shore.

And George Bush is the first American president to unequivocally state that Palestinians have a right to their own nation. (...)unlike European colonialism of the past, there is no desire to build an American Empire.

State that Palestinians have a right to their own nation is not enough
The United States vetoed every single resolutions the UN proposed....

Anti-Americanism in Britain has been blinded by its own propaganda which posits that America is run for the benefit of the rich at the expense of the poor – a judgement which ignores the reality of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Have you ever lived in the States? I have, and I’m not very rich. Poverty is not a myth in this country, it is almost umbelievable to see so much wealth but so many poors.
Real poors like I would never see in France. Wealthy people with 3 cars a house and a swimming pool 2 horses....
Let me laugh at Social security, Medicare and Medicaid, almost nothing.
I’ve seen people borrow money to pay their medical bills and waiting in real physical pains because they did not have the money to do blood tests and analyses.
I’ve seen a woman who was burnt all over her body waiting for the State to agree on a surgery for her, her skin was craking and bleeding everywhere because it shrickened... she lived in a trailer in a national forest, she had been waiting for 1 year when I met her .....

I did not have any insurance but the doctors were nices and did not charge me too much (80 to 120 $) but one of my friend who had an insurance paid 300, and the insurance would only reimburse him part of it, he usually had to pay 100 $ each time...

At least I know that in France, if my grand-mother is ill, I will not watch her die because I’m poor.

Most anti-Americanism in Europe reflects the worries about "imperialism" and "dominance" without positing any rational alternative, except for the belief that rational discourse with dictators around the world will bring an end to famine, civil wars and territorial expansion. Anti-Americanism is about accepting the idea that the United States is not sincere about fighting terrorism or exporting democratic ideals.

It is the “exporting” that disturbs... Exporting ideals, exporting ideas? nationalism?
The United States (as any country) has decided to help certain countries and not others, how do they choose? I think it’s logical to have a critical view on it. Being critical is part of democracy.
Alternative: Help ones country instead of destroying it, killing its citizen, and rebuildind it in your way. Respect other’s culture, let them free to think and do not make them become dependent on your money because otherwise they’ll do anything you want.
When I was working in the States I went to a conference where the woman who was a syndicalist explained how everything the syndicalists tried to do to defend the workers rights in China was rejected by its own governement.... Need investments in their country, don’t want the Americans or European to leave. The wealth of China increase but it only benefits to a few.

They are also in awe at the way Americans rightly defend their values of patriotism, equal justice and community spirit and the way their high energy is infused into everything from entertainment, sports, work and creativity.

Unfortunately, as I noticed when I was doing my research, patriotism is often used to prevent dissent. But Patriotism of dissent is necessary.
If we love our country we must be critical. Patritism is good as long as it is no “blind or empty” patriotism.

Dave Livingston - 1/7/2005

Peter Clarke,

The only diaster to come out of Viet-Nam was the gutless manner in which we abandoned, at the behest of Bleed'n Heart Liberals, our South Viet ally to the horrors imposed subsequent to the Communist conquest.

For a balanced view of the subject you might see David Horowitz', in the 60s the editor of the Left-wing anti-war magazine "Ramparts," recantation of his 60s anti-war position on ""

If we'd, as a nation had heeded the bleating of the Left in the 60s regard to unilateral disarmament, today'd we be speaking Russian or Chinese.

Campus Liberals, largely self-isolated from reality in "sheltered habitats" remain amazingly out-of-touch with social and political reality. FORTUNATELY! Fortunately, because they with their politically oh so correct blinkers on contribute tremendously to conservative electoral victories, year-after-year.

For instance, in addition to national general election losses the Left has been battered in recent decades on the gun control issue. Despite Leftist weeping and hand-wringing predictions of licensed carnage in the streets today 97% of the states permit licensed concealed carry of handguns.

Typically, the places yet resisting CC laws, such as Chicago, Detroit & Washington, D.C. are the parts of the country with the highest rates of violent crime.

Dave Livingston - 1/7/2005

As Stuart Berman put it, "Well put."

It is difficult for me to have much sympathy or respect for European complaints about the U.S.

For one thing, Europe is evidently a civilization that has lost its will to survive, as is demonstrated by its continuing demographic suicide. For another, it seems each time it gets in trouble, usually of its own making, Europe needs the U.S. to bail it out--witness WWI, WWII, the Cold War,& more recently the Balkans, when & where Europeans couldn't work up the gumption to tackle the problem on their own, once again relying on us.

Several, if not most, European economies are export-driven. In contrast, ours is not, but 12% of the U.S. GNP is export produced. Ergo, they need us more than we need them on more than one count.

One major reason Europe's militaries are far, far behind the U.S.'s in quality is that rapidly aging Europe is diverting an ever increasing percentage of its spending to social issues. Eego, it just hasn't the money to keep up its defenses. That's another reflection of its decadence, which has led to its demographics. A factor of decadence in addition to its abandonment of its Christian heritage.

Dave Livingston - 1/7/2005

I agree with that this is an excellent article. And my decades agone personal experiences of living in Europe, actually with 7th (U.S.)Army in Germany, and my few subsequent touristy trips to visit Europe support the thrust of the article's argument(s).

That said, I am left puzzled by Friedman's assertion that Marx was "rabidly antisemite." The puzzle is how could he Marx a Semite himself be considered antisemitic? I'd appreciate a little help with this question.

Was Trotsky too "antisemitic?"

Dave Livingston - 1/7/2005


Marx was another intelllectual who hated or at least despised his own heritage, eh? More than a bit pathetic.

Dave Livingston - 1/7/2005

Securing a source of oil as a motivation for the invasion is nonsense. For onr thing, we could have purchased oil on the open market at less financial cost, let alone political cost & lives lost, than it cost us to conquer Iraq. So the theory we invaded Iraq because of its oil is nothing but anti-American propaganda. Only willing dupes or fools would buy that argument.

Dave Livingston - 1/7/2005

Zionism and anti-zionism aren't of particular interest to me. But regardless I'm Christian (Catholic) I'm certainly strongly supportive of the state of Israel for a number of reasons. It is baffling that any Jew could be anti-zionist, which I understand to mean anti-Israel, but I've read that some are.

And being Christian as bumper sticker philosophy has it, "My boss is a Jewish carpenter."

But people being people some can rationalize nearly any belief or attitude, including antisemitism. Because when he was down & out, poor, Hitler was given a helping hand by a Jew it has especially puzzled me that he became antisemitic. How could, did, he justify to himself his anti-semitism? But then, he came to hate Christianity too.

Although it is said Hitler wasn't a madman, clearly some of the choices he made were irrational, especially once he was in power in Germsny.

Jonathan Pine - 12/31/2004

Mr. Berman,
I am not familiar with Barnett and haven’t gotten around to reading him yet. But on what you wrote:
"Some assume it is due to poverty and the disparity between the West " I feel that is a good part of the cause that began with the Europeans in the 15th century when they began the process of under-developing Africa which in turn led to an unfair world economy (this simplistically put of course). Paul Harrison’s book, Inside The Third World, explained it 25 years ago in detailed analysis that is impossible to lay out here.

When the Bush administration first applied its preemption strategy it marked a historical tipping point. Washington took real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization. But this is the point that worries me. We can’t really know which side history is on until much later, and globalization, along with the new security paradigm that is shaping this age may bring up little disasters we can’t even conceive of yet. Of course, wondering what will happen next is the fun part of everything.

Mr. Livingston,
Europe hasn't the spare money to keep up its defenses mainly because it’s depending on the U.S. and will do so for some time I think. What I don’t agree with you on is the question on their will to survive. I think they are cleverer than we give them credit for. First, they let us pay for most of their security. Then, if you look at it from the business angle Europe definitely intends to survive. For example, the United States had to change its corporate-tax code after the EU brought a successful case before the World Trade Organisation. This may just be part of the broader process of globalisation but just as America owns many European companies Europeans also own American companies.

Val Jobson - 12/31/2004

That's a very interesting analysis. Something which is likely to damage America's technological reputation further are the reports of people in various states who insist that creationism and intelligent design be taught in schools. Is this likely to result in fewer scientists being trained, or in questions on the credibility of younger scientists? Of course, the current administration already has a bad reputation for its attitude on global climate change and on its subordination of science to politics.

Val Jobson - 12/31/2004

Article by Charles M. Sennott discussing how generous the US is and the use of statistics:

"...But both on a per capita basis and as a percentage of the nation's wealth, America's emergency relief in Asia and development aid to poor countries actually ranks at the bottom of the list of developed nations, some of the world's top economists and analysts of international development aid said yesterday..."

"...As of yesterday, the amount the United States has pledged is eclipsed by the $96 million promised by Britain, a country with one-fifth the population, and by the $75 million vowed by Sweden, which amounts to $8.40 for each of its 9 million people. Denmark's pledge of $15.6 million amounts to roughly $2.90 per capita.

The US donation is 12 cents per capita..."

"...In terms of private donations to charity, American citizens and corporations give generously -- more than $3 billion a year. But Sachs and other analysts say that amount only slightly changes -- from 0.15 percent to 0.18 percent of GNP -- the relatively low standing of the United States.

Sarah Kline, head of UK and European Union relations for Oxfam UK, said, ''If you want to compare records, overall the best way to do that is to look at what percentage a country spends as a percentage of its [gross domestic product], and in that sense America has always spent less than most of the other developed countries." ..."

Stuart Berman - 12/31/2004

I'll wait for the counts to be tallied.

In the meantime, here is an editorial from today's Wall Street Journal citing American's generosity:

Far From Stingy
December 31, 2004; Page A10

Across the world, the reaction to Asia's tsunami is bringing out the best in human nature. Fund-raising appeals, disaster-relief teams, military assets -- all are being marshaled for the victims of this tragedy.

Which makes it all the more outrageous that a top United Nations official chose this week to accuse the U.S. and other Western nations of being stingy with assistance to poorer nations. "We were more generous when we were less rich," Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland lectured on Monday. "And it is beyond me why we are so stingy, really."

Now, complaints about U.S. miserliness are more routine than the earthquakes and floods that strike the globe. A favorite "fact" of international critics is that while the U.S. government nearly always ranks first in absolute amounts of foreign aid, it tends to fall last among industrial countries in aid as a percentage of gross national product. The one-tenth of one percent that Washington devotes to foreign assistance, they say, is nothing compared with what the U.S. could afford.

The problem is that, as with so many questions of accounting (say, Oil for Food), the U.N. and other international bodies rely on unreliable ledgers. Groups like the Development Assistance Committee (part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) tend to look only at "official" government aid. What this misses is that Americans have never trusted government institutions to dole out assistance. Instead, we open our wallets for private groups that are better at targeting money where it's needed, tracking projects, cutting waste -- and getting results.

When it comes to this sort of giving, nobody beats Americans. According to a 2003 report from the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. international assistance to developing countries in 2000 was $56 billion. Yet just 18% of that was "official" government assistance. Some $33.6 billion -- or 60% -- came from the private sector. Corporations shelled out nearly $3 billion. Religious groups weighed in with $3.4 billion. Individuals provided $18 billion. To say nothing of funds from foundations, private and voluntary organizations, or universities.

Cynics mark this generosity down to a U.S. tax code that encourages giving. Yet most research shows that Americans view donations as a duty. Philanthropy magazine reports a study showing the average U.S. contribution outweighs the average German or French one seven- or eight-fold. This sense of responsibility is often motivated by faith; some 60% of American donations go to religious groups or causes.

None of this sits well with the U.N., whose own budget relies on state dollars. A chastened Mr. Egeland was forced later this week to claim he'd been misinterpreted and to acknowledge U.S. generosity. But behind this apology is the U.N.'s longstanding belief that what's really needed is for the U.S. and others to raise taxes to pay for more public foreign aid.

That approach reigns in Western Europe and explains what's wrong with so much of current foreign aid. Europeans have come to view private donations as a failure of the state and expect their governments to collect billions in taxes to shuffle along to slow-moving and unaccountable international bureaucracies. The result is a lose-lose situation. Giving countries see their own economies depressed by higher taxes and receiving countries find the aid too often enabling strongmen or perpetuating poor policies.

A far better approach, at least in the public sphere, are initiatives such as President Bush's Millennium Challenge Account. By tying long-term assistance to improvements in specific economic and political goals -- such as cracking down on corruption or establishing rules of law -- foreign aid brings about real reform. This approach drives U.N. bureaucrats nuts, a sure sign it's on the right track.

Today's priority in Asia is immediate humanitarian relief. The list of U.S.-based private and religious organizations already working in the area is stunning. And it's good to see the U.S. decision effectively to go around U.N. bureaucracy by working directly with a coalition of Japan, Australia and India to coordinate relief. Meanwhile, we can expect the federal government to continue its tradition of generosity in the upcoming weeks -- a tradition that resulted in $2.4 billion in humanitarian relief last year alone, or 40% of the world total.

But future money, both public and private, should be aimed at developing the sort of governments and economies that will be equipped to deal with disasters on their own.

Stuart Berman - 12/31/2004

Well put. One problem to be faced is in order to beat terrorism you have to look at its causes. Some assume it is due to poverty and the disparity between the West and other nations, others claim it is the 'just fight' against an 'evil America and Israel', myself I consider the perspective of Tom Barnett
to be more reasonable, that is that terrorism is mainly the result of cultures and 'super-empowered' individuals that want to disconnect from the modern world - and much of that based upon a fear of empowering women in those cultures.

Andrew D. Todd - 12/31/2004

The Finnish-American industrial designer Victor Papenek once made an interesting point, in his _Design for the Real World_ (1972), that the overseas popularity of American popular culture was linked to the idea of material prosperity. American movies projected American daily life in its idealized form, complete with all the labor-saving machines. American comics did the same thing, in a more extreme fashion (Dick Tracy and his wrist-watch radio). In a more refined form, one can find this in Le Corbusier's _When the Cathedrals Were White_ (1936).

As late as the 1980's, there was still a perceptible sense of American technological superiority. For example, see Dick Pountain's columns about English computers in Byte, the American computer magazine. At that date, there was an important peck-order difference between people with $10,000 computers, which would be obsolete in a year or two, and those with $500 computers. In terms of annual depreciation, a high-end computer was as expensive as a luxury automobile. Due to complications about exchange rates, the English were at the bottom end of the spectrum.

However, these conditions no longer obtain. Europeans now have everything from America that they want. Of course their automobiles are not so big as ours, but they have a fairly exact sense of what new roads would involve in terms of demolishing medieval buildings. The dollar is falling, driven primarily by American gasoline consumption.

Americans are in the position, for the first time in a century, of having to justify ourselves to Europeans on moral rather than material grounds. A case can be made that Europeans have always regarded Americans as a bit gruesome. I have in front of me a reproduction of a 1906 Simplissimus cartoon:

"Various Nationalities in a Railroad Accident. The German writes a picture postcard. The Frenchman scrapes acquaintance with a lady. The Englishman reads on undisturbed. The American gathers parts of bodies for the Chicago sausage factories..."
(Stanley Appelbaum, ed., Simplissimus: 180 Satirical Drawings from the Famous German Weekly, Dover Publications, New York, 1975, p. 72 )

Jonathan Pine - 12/31/2004

Since I live on both sides of the Atlantic the picture I get is divided but they are more on the side of sneers. There are many, many things to sneer about since no country is perfect but overall much of Europe remains in denial about Bush’s election victory. Europeans often accuse the US of arrogantly failing to understand other cultures but then make little effort to understand America. The election proves that Americans are on his side. Even the loser, Kerry, did not oppose the war. It is not just Bush who is unco-operative on global warming. Not one U.S. senator voted for the Kyoto agreement.

As the coalition becomes more bogged down in Iraq smug Europeans claim America is isolated. But Europe can’t afford to be estranged from America. Maybe the Bush administration is using the dollar to illustrate his point. As it falls it is Europe, not America, that feels the pain.

Europe is surrounded by many dangers across north Africa and through the Middle East. European security depends on America. Their security depends on America now as throughout the 20th century. Without U.S intervention in both world wars and it if hadn’t been for U.S. protection under NATO during the cold war they might now all be speaking Russian. After U.S. policy, and the Soviet Union going broke trying to keep up the arms race, Europe proved unable to sort out Bosnia and Kosovo. So Clinton, much aligned by Republican war-hawks, took care of business in a war-hawk fashion.

As much as some can’t stand this American president it’s silly to assume nothing good can come from him. The Bush administration have made some horrendous errors in Iraq which has contributed to America’s negative image but putting aside personalities, politics, and bungled strategies, most would like to see a Democratic Iraq or some equivalent under its own full sovereignty. Also Bush now has a first-rate opportunity to restore some of America’s tarnished image with some full energetic help to the Tsunami victims. And Europe has to close ranks with America if they are going to beat this terrorism problem.

Nathaniel Brian Bates - 12/31/2004

A lot of the anti-American hate from people on this discussion thread, particularly from Europeans who would all be speaking German today if Americans had not intervened, is a direct result of the deserved lack of respect toward a people that has abandoned Truth. How sad.

Nathaniel Brian Bates - 12/31/2004

A lot of the anti-American hate from people on this discussion thread, particularly from Europeans who would all be speaking German today if Americans had not intervened, is a direct result of the deserved lack of respect toward a people that has abandoned Truth. How sad.

Nathaniel Brian Bates - 12/31/2004

A lot of the anti-American hate from people on this discussion thread, particularly from Europeans who would all be speaking German today if Americans had not intervened, is a direct result of the deserved lack of respect toward a people that has abandoned Truth. How sad.

Nathaniel Brian Bates - 12/31/2004

Interesting article. It overlooks the degree to which America and Europe are both Hellenistic civilizations who believe that they have the right to rule. America in Iraq, France in the Ivory Coast, and both jointly in Haiti. Modern Israel has sinned to model itself on either civilization, in following the ways of the Nations through which G-d sent the Israelites. America has a Declaration of Independence, Israel must have one. America has a Constitution, Israel must have a similar Hellenistic Constitution. America allows Communists and terrorists to teach in Universities, so must Israel allow Palestinian terrorists to run for office. America tolerates Jane Fonda (whom I do not defend, other than against accusations that are false), so must Israel tolerate appeasers. America is capitalist and "democratic", so must Israel. You all get the picture.

Val Jobson - 12/30/2004

You stated "we have a short history unsullied by uniquely dark deeds"; I would say any dark deed has its own uniqueness. American slavery was a more toxic evil than in many ancient countries where slaves had some legal rights and were able to buy their own freedom and be accepted as members of the society. And how about lynchings? There's a uniquie American cultural practice which contributed to your blues and jazz.

Val Jobson - 12/30/2004

Have you not heard about the systemic torture committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and within your own prison system for that matter? Your president allowed the torture at Abu Ghraib and may have actually ordered it. How about the School of the Americas? And check out this article about the current dictator of Uzbekistan, a member of Bush's coalition of warmongers, who has had people boiled to death.,3604,963497,00.html

I do have a correction; the Canadian federal government contribution is $33 million in US dollars at present; I think they just announced they will be matching private donations in addition. Canadians will probably give more per person in private donations than Americans; likewise the Europeans; the British especially are being generous; We don't sit on our butts waiting for government to do it.
Check out these articles by Americans:
especially the last one which states:
"But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent."
"But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe."
"Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver."

Stuart Berman - 12/30/2004

Maybe you don't understand our system? Many of the old world governments are the official suppliers of charity. In our system, the people give far more than the government, since we aren't taxed as highly and don't expect the government to give for us. Let's take a look at the total aid donated on a per capita basis looking at both private and public donations once this has all played out - then present your statistics.

Otherwise your comments are more abusive than constructive, calling me and those that live in this country 'stingy bastards' is uncalled for. I too support the war in Iraq, not for the purpose of 'killing Iraqi civilians', but as a greater humanitarian effort that is ridding the world of despotic and inhumane killers that systemized the torture of men, women and children. Oh yeah - did the US ever have prisons dedicated to imprisoning young children as a reprisal for the perceived actions of their parents? Oh and rape and torture rooms for those we want to humiliate? And the obscene use of plastic shredders to be used on PEOPLE? I have talked to and heard from too many Iraqis to NOT have compassion on what they were enduring. The most damning criticism I have heard from real Iraqis is that by not finishing the war in the 90's we allowed too many to suffer in the aftermath.

Stuart Berman - 12/30/2004

No dark deeds? Not what I said.
In context and compared to others - not remarkable.

Slavery - has gone on for thousands of years, was considered by many of our founding fathers to be a problem, but one that would have wait for a later day. My point is that we didn't create slavery, black tribesmen sold their captives to Europeans who indulged a minority in our nation. Mark Twain gives interesting insight into this problem - including his reformation and how complex the relationship really was - murder was not that typical just as one would not want to destroy their own property, it doesn't make sense.

The Civil War - I don't think that was done for fun either. In fact many men gave their lives for the freedom of others, white and black men dying for liberty of unknown black men, women and children.

Indian Wars - Not much different from anyone else's history. Was it all massacre and darkness? Seems there are plenty of cases of honor and respect, to this day Native Americans serve with distinction and higher participation in our combat forces.

Vietnam, etc... - In context of why we were there and what we thought we were doing - hardly remarkable in the grand scheme of world history in terms of darkness. Perhaps had we been Phalangists in Sabra and Shatilla or some of our European friends trying to exterminate anyone with a hint of Jewish heritage we could claim that distinction. When the WTC went down there were those who danced in the streets, can you say the same about Americans once the atrocities committed in My Lai or Abu Ghraib were discovered?

We as a people respect the rights of others and take no joy at the suffering of others regardless of whether we inflicted that harm. Val, perhaps you just don't know the Americans of today or of our history.

Bill Heuisler - 12/30/2004

Dante or Hobbs? Nice imagery. Terrible cynicism.
You've obviously lived elsewhere, under other types of governments, and have chosen to move here. From your experience, please name another country or system that provides more individual freedom than the United States does for it's people. Also why are we the single country in the world where nearly everyone wants to emigrate?

John H. Lederer - 12/30/2004

If your only other choice is smarmy sycophancy, why don't you stick to oil? It is more easy to convince people of that than that we are after Iraq's sand.

Val Jobson - 12/30/2004

A few thousand people die in New York and the whole world expresses its sympathy and support for the USA. Over one hundred thousand die from the tsunami, and your lazy fool of a president stays on his ranch and SAYS NOTHING AND DOES NOTHING! What the hell is wrong with him? Oh yeah, he whined about how "It's hard work" to be president, but how would he know what hard work is?

So far the US has pledged $35 million to help tsunami victims. Canada, with one tenth the population, has pledged $40 million. Spain has pledged $68 million. The US plans to spend $40 million on Bush's inauguration.

So much for the high ideals of the wealthy USA; it'll devote billions of dollars to killing Iraqi civilians, but much less to helping people. Stingy bastards.

Val Jobson - 12/30/2004

In other words you do not "know better"; you refuse to accept the results of a scientific study by a several respected institutions because it does not support your prejudices.

Arnold Shcherban - 12/30/2004

<We live in the most ... and altruistic country in the world.>


all world hoebbelses haven't been able to concoct bigger, but admittedly sweeter, Lie.
The Hell itself is choking with laughter...

Val Jobson - 12/30/2004

Dark deeds like:
1. slavery; in which one group of people had the right to torture rape and murder another group without consequences?
2. The Civil War; brother against brother, and all that
3. The Indian Wars; the theft of lands, the Trail of Tears, massacres at Sand Creek, wounded Knee, etc., etc.
4. Vietnam; My Lai, Agent Orange, etc., etc.

The US has done many good things, but how can anyone pretend it has no dark deeds in its history?

Val Jobson - 12/30/2004

No, I wasn't aware of the retraction.

I'd say much of the world outside of the US remains convinced that the Iraq war was about oil. I don't see why this opinion would be construed as anti-American, since that particular motivation, war in order to control resources, is at least a rational one, not moral but understandable; and it has plenty of precedent.

Would it not be more anti-American to argue that the motive for war was Bush's venal desire to win a second term? Or that he started a war because of his personal psychological defects? And that the rest of the US slavishly supported him because they were too lazy and stupid to stop him? Or that Americans are such cowards that they have to bomb thousands of innocent people in an attempt to discourage anyone from attacking them?

Can we avoid a charge of anti-Americanism only by agreeing that the sole motive for this war was to spread sweetness and light throughout the world?; that the US is as pure as newfallen snow?; that Bush is a saintly, self-sacrifing individual who cries himself to sleep every night over the massive death toll he has caused? Is the choice confined to smarmy sycophancy or anti-Americanism?

Bill Heuisler - 12/30/2004

Mr. Clarke,
You are correct that the quotes of imperialist Senators, Beveridge and Lodge, illustrate the feelings of many in the US at the turn of the Century, but those words don't mirror US actual policy under McKinley or Roosevelt any more than the isolationist sentiments of many in 1915 were reflected in actual Wilson foreign policies.

Isn't it wonderful how we've improved? You must go back 100 years for an example of American Imperialism. We live in the most free and altruistic country in the world.
We should be proud and celebrate our good fortune. Right?
Bill Heuisler

Stuart Berman - 12/30/2004

I don't take your comments as an insult but as fairly realistic. One of my favorite novels is Silence Among the Weapons by British author John Arden. I am also glad you qualified yourself by exempting Melville and Twain. You ought not to forget what is widely regarded as a wonderful and uniquely American innovation, the American musical (or light opera). And among composers Gershwin should also be exempted. Others might also want to add Rap, Blues, Jazz and Country music to the list.

I take your point that we have a short history unsullied by uniquely dark deeds (much of our 'dark images' were imported from other cultures and eventually corrected in time). Our great contribution to the world may be seen as our unbridled hope and optimism and our role in the ascendancy of individual rights and freedom.

John H. Lederer - 12/29/2004

The Guardian restracted the article you quoted. Were you unaware of the retarction. It was well publicized.,3604,971436,00.html

Wonder if the original German error was one more example of anti-americanism? The Guardian's printing of it? Your repeating of it?

Bill Heuisler - 12/29/2004

Mr. Clarke,
Your constant use of the term, chickenhawk, is amusing. Perhaps you overcompensate for shortcomings, like a combover, elevator shoes or maybe a rolled-up sock.
Did you ever see combat? If so, where? If not, argue with facts rather than childish insults.

FYI three of the top five members of this administration were in the military, unlike the Clinton Administration.
Can we assume you said the same about them?

Notice the posters at HNN who use the term. Notice the vets who do not. Get the message?
Bill Heuisler

David Harrison - 12/29/2004

I'm British, I support the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Although I was in a minority, I went to wave a stars and stripes when Bush visited the UK.

But I have to say American novels suck. Mr Ayton claims Americans are cultured; I'd claim the opposite. Americans are the most uncultured people in the world, bar places like Somalia.

Doubtless, readers will take this as an insult. It's not meant as one. American culture is the culture of practical affairs, of getting up and doing things, of inventing and trading and yakking and exploring. That's something to be proud of. I understand this because I come from a country which is relatively uncultured too. Our composers are poor, our painters are wretched, our only real claim to fame is Shakespeare and some world-class poets.

But by God we know how to make things, and plan, and get things done. This is a strand of our culture which was taken to the US and amplified to make it the country it is today. Apart from Melville and Twain, American novelists suck; likelwise American composers and painters.

To be cultured you need history, memory, dreams, nostalgia and dark images from the past. America has none of these, and can be proud of the fact.

Just my two cents... erm, pence.

Bill Heuisler - 12/29/2004

Mr. Beatty,
Thanks for your response. Your argument falls apart when you dig a little deeper into the conquest of Scotland,the opium wars and the ghost of Aguinaldo.

Forgeting a moment claims of sovereignty, the Hammer invaded Scotland to retaliate for Scottish raids across the border and for the burning of Ayr and Lanark, and the killing of the English Sheriff, Hazelrig. The Scots had declared independence. They had freedom and lost it.

As to China, the argument can be made that the Hsuan Tsung regime interfered with free trade - Indian opium for Chinese tea - after the British East India Company's monopoly ended and the Chinese commercial regulation of commerce became immeasurably harder. In 1839 an Imperial Chinese Commissioner burned 30,000 chests of Indian opium in British warehouses in Canton. Hostilities followed.
There was no intent of conquest (except for Hong Kong) only to end a monopolistic system of maritime trade. One did not equal the other even though China was literally prostrate after the French, British occupation of Peking in 1860. Trade without conquest was the result.

But how does Great Britain's "...self-aggrandizement and aggrandizement of one's folk." explain or illustrate anti Americanism in any case?

The Philippines (Aguinaldo) were rebelling against Spain.
We helped. After the Treaty of Paris ceded the Islands to us, Aguinaldo revolted in spite of our promise to deliver "the amplest Liberty of self- government." We broke promises and killed Philippinos, but history argues that our intentions were always to deliver that Liberty.
There is no evidence, written or spoken, that the US ever intended to make the Philippines part of a US Empire. There is ample evidence we intended and delivered greater Philippine freedoms than the Spanish ever allowed.
Bill Heuisler

Val Jobson - 12/29/2004

What casualty figures do you have for Iraqi civilians and soldiers? What is your source of information? Justify your claim that you know better.

The invasion of Iraq is not a video game, and when you fire missiles into a city, many people die. Considering that the population of Iraq is roughly half children, it is probable that thousands of children have been blown to pieces or burned to death by American ordinance. Are you proud of that?

Val Jobson - 12/29/2004

The fact is that the U.S. Army has consistently refused to provide any estimates of civilian casualties and that it has bombed cities which containing civilians. Until an independent source comes up with a better way of counting civilian deaths, the figure of 100,000 will stand.

Val Jobson - 12/29/2004

Peter; granted there may be numerous reasons for the invasion, including Bush's desire to out-do Daddy and his delusional messianic complex; nevertheless, the closest connection that his gang has to reality is through their connections to the oil industry. If they are capable of long-term thinking at all, it is the coming oil crisis that they are most willing to do something about. They can deny and ignore the approaching environmental disaster and tell themselves it won't happen in their lifetimes; but they actually understand that oil production may have reached its peak and that the US will soon be competing with China and other growing countries for what is left; therefore they need to control as much oil as possible.

N. Friedman - 12/29/2004


Interesting point.

I note that Lucy Dawidowicz's book is really a brilliant book.

I think the point of Nietzsche and Bat Ye'or is that Antisemitism, as a political doctrine (i.e. eliminationist Judeophobia of the Nazi stripe) has Anti-Zionism in its origins.

N. Friedman - 12/29/2004


I stand by my assertion. Read Marx's “On the Jewish Question.” You might also read some of his letters. This material is available online. I do not know the URL. I note that I learned about Marx's views, initially, by reading Bernard Lewis' famous book, Semites and Anti-Semites.

I note: the fact that Marx was of Jewish heritage has nothing to do with his being or not being Antisemitic.

Andrew D. Todd - 12/29/2004

You might look at:

Beatrice C. Baskerville, The Polish Jew, Macmillan, New York, 1906.

A kind of guided tour to the politics of Polish Jewry, ranging from traditionalists to assimilationists, to Zionists, to the Jewish Bund, the radical socialists. One point to catch is the extent to which certain traditionalist elements regarded Zionism as blasphemy, a presumptuous usurping of the place of Jehovah with merely human actions. Actually doing something about "next year in Jerusalem" was presumably an act on the same general level as proclaiming oneself to be the Messiah.


Peter Loewenberg, Decoding the past : the psychohistorical approach, New York : Knopf : Distributed by Random House, 1982.

Loewenberg has an essay on Theodore Hertzl. One of the points that Loewenberg brings out is that Hertzl was a tacit subscriber to the anti-semitic critique of Jewry. He used phrases like "pants-peddling boys" (hosenverkaufendeknabe).

There was a certain odd community of interest between Zionists and anti-semites. As Lucy S. Dawidowicz notes, in _The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945_ (1975, pbk. ed. 1976-1981), the Haavera agreements of 1933 provided a system whereby Jews wishing to emigrate from Nazi Germany to Palestine could transfer their capital, half in Palestinian Pounds, and half in German exports (pp. 110-113, pbk. ed.). In the 1930's the most viable alternative destination would probably have been South America, and the Jewish Agency was in effect being given special privileges vis a vis Bolivia.

There is a phenomena of "the conspiracy of the extremes against the middle," analogous to the Hitler-Stalin Nonaggression Pact. The two sets of extremists agree to destroy the moderates for their mutual profit. The conspiracy may be overt or tacit.

Maura Doherty - 12/29/2004

Do any of you actually live in Europe and talk to the people here? I do. Most people over 30 are greatly appreciative of the American role in World War II. Anti-Americanism is not a sport; but surges and wanes in direct relationship to American policy. During Clinton's administration, I felt no anti-Americanism. It resurged in the first month of Bush's presidency when he scrapped the Kyoto Treaty to reduce worldwide pollution. Speculate as you like; but it all sounds like deflective mythmaking to stereotype Europeans and to dismiss any criticism of American policy.

Michael Beatty - 12/29/2004

Mr Clarke -

Please, please, PLEASE! tell me that folks understand that you don't necessarily have to have a Colonial Office, nor do you necessarily have to appoint a Viceroy, in order to have an empire.

Michael Beatty - 12/29/2004

Mr. Mahan -

"The US has no interest in assuming ruling governmental power over other states." Really? Is that why President Bush recently awarded Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L Paul Bremer the Presidential Medal of Freedom? For meritorious service in avoiding the assumption of ruling power over another state? Is that why the timetable for Iraq's election was determined by the Bush Administration, and why, despite withdrawals of various religious parties from the electoral process, the Bush Administration is insisting that the election go off in January as planned?

Michael Beatty - 12/29/2004

To respond to Bill Heuisler's post, it is not a case of confusing trade and conquest. They are entirely different activities. Conquest, however, is frequently a follow-along phase to the opening of trade. One need look no further than the Opium Wars that Britain fought with China in the 1840s and '50s. If for no other reason, the British brought the Chinese to blows to protect the access of British merchants - which the Chinese were not bound by statute to grant - to the Chinese tea market.

I'm not sure how building empire "assumes motives not in evidence." Res ipsa loquitur - the English conquest of Scotland, to take merely one example of the act of conquest offering compelling evidence of the motives both to self-aggrandizement and aggrandizement of one's folk.

The duality of your reference to the Philippines and your statement that "Each country we've defeated in war has received more freedom, not less" struck me as odd. I think the ghost of Manuel Quezon would probably agree that waiting almost 50 years for your freedom is a little long. To assert that the Philippines achieved anything more than the exchange of one colonial master for another in 1898 would be to ignore the facts.

Are you prepared to allow our fighting men and women to bleed for another 46 years (the Philippines were a US territory from 1898-1946, a period of 48 years; we've been in Iraq for two years) before we finally get Iraq back on her feet?

The fact that we "could have had" an empire, but instead "chose to urge/allow/dispense freedom" does not excuse latter-day empire-building. If the United States is *not* after all engaged in empire-building in Iraq, why do we insist that Iraqi elections be held on a timetable proposed by the Bush Administration?

Just as an aside, while we were talking about the Philippines, the formulation that "the flag follows trade, and the Constitution follows the flag" is a principle enunciated by the US Supreme Court in the early 20th century (around 1903-04, if I remember correctly) in a series of cases (collectively called the "Peninsular Cases" concerning that issue that arose from the US occupation of the Philippines.

Thank you for a stimulating debate. I don't believe you're right, but I'm glad for the chance to argue my point a little further.

Bill Heuisler - 12/28/2004

Mr. Clarke,
Thank you for informing us about hypocrite half-wits running the Government, ignorance, myopia, and laziness endemic in the "Red" states, the phony foreign policy of Rove and my ill-informed bravado. Your opinions are fun, but hollow. You miss the point - as usual.

With the exception of Iraq and Mexico we did not conquer and occupy those other countries you mentioned. We did achieve freedom from George III and from piracy.

However,Iraq broke the cease fire 14 times, tried to kill an American President, fired on American planes, funded homicide bombers, threatened the US with WMDs, trained highjackers at Salman Pak, aided and abetted Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attack and then hid and nurtured known Al Qaeda members after 9/11. We have evicted Iraq'a tyrant and there will be free elections next month.

We left Mexico after the war. Presidents Jose Joaquin de Herrera and Mariano Arista replaced the tyrant, Santa Anna for (only) five years, but there was a brief time of relative freedom in Mexico after Scott and Taylor left.

You dislike the President, have contempt for the majority of Americans and distrust many people's motives, but you have nothing but hollow opinion in explanation.
Bill Heuisler

Bill Heuisler - 12/28/2004

Mr. Jobson,
The study was inaccurate and politically motivated.
The Lancet study itself is as good a source as any.

The Lancet’s heading of the study read "100,000 civilian deaths". The study itself counts excess deaths and does not attempt to classify them as combatants or civilians.

The Lancet study claimed pre-war infant mortality was twenty nine per one thousand live births. Actually, the pre-war infant mortality in Iraq was one hundred per one thousand infant deaths - according to UNICEF statistics.
Bill Heuisler

Val Jobson - 12/28/2004

Cite your sources.

Val Jobson - 12/28/2004

Re 100,000 civilian deaths; study by "researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Columbia University School of Nursing and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad" in other words, American researchers took part in the study; report dated October 28, 2004 on website at [Johns Hopkins website]

"...Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery..."


Re oil as the motive for war [a few of many articles on the internet]:

Note especially this one:
quoting from this June 4 2003 article:

"...The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." ...
article dated March 9, 2003:
"...Originally, this was the "Kissinger plan,'' says James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He lost his state department job for publicly criticizing administration plans to control Arab oil back in 1975 when Henry Kissinger was secretary of state.

"I thought they were crazy then and they're crazy now,'' Akins tells the Star, adding that Congress studied plans to control Persian Gulf oil and concluded the idea was absolute madness.

"I thought this whole thing was dead. But now you've got all these `neo-cons' in power, and here we go again,'' says Akins, a Washington-based consultant. "They figure once they take over Iraq, they don't have to worry about the Saudis." ..."

Enough? No doubt you could find more if you tried. Notice that some of the articles are dated before or during the American invasion of Iraq, back when your president and his gang were repeatedly lying about Iraq being a threat with weapons of mass destruction, and pretending that Iraq had some conection with 9/11. The only people fool by your lying greddy war criminal president were some Americans. The world knows that Americans are just as greedy and evil as anyone else; and they do not start an unnecessary war out of pure or democratic motives. I mean, how naive can you be?

Bill Heuisler - 12/28/2004

Mr. Beatty,
Do you mistake trade - quid pro quo - for conquest?
Surely you can perceive the vast difference between fighting tyranny and building empire. One is reactive, the other assumes motives not in evidence. Taking only the twentieth century as relevant, our American "empire" has avoided forcefully absorbing a dozen countries we had occupied or conquered, including the Phillipines, Cuba, Mexico and Panama, not to mention Japan and Germany.

Had we wished an empire we could've had one - for better or worse - but we chose to urge/allow/dispense freedom in those countries rather than dominate or tyrannize. Your use of the word, empire, is the problem; it has become a pejorative used against a country that has conquered farther than Alexander, but has chosen to withdraw forces and remain the same size after Gadsen, Alaska and Hawaii.

Each country we've defeated in war has received more freedom, not less, as a result.
Bill Heuisler

Michael Beatty - 12/28/2004

I'm fascinated by the dichotomy between Mr Ayton's dual assertions that "American force will always be used to fight tyranny throughout the world especially when it threatens American interests" and that ". . . unlike European colonialism of the past, there is no desire to build an American Empire." These statements seem contradictory to me.

If you have interests "throughout the world," then are you not ipso facto building an empire? The flag follows trade, and supposedly the Constitution follows the flag. Where the Constitution goes, so must the people go; and where the people are, there must be their government, which is a "government of the people."

Intentionally or not, America is building an empire. Whether it is an empire of plunder and exploitation, or an empire for the purpose of extending a Pax Americana over the globe is irrelevant. An empire it is, and America cannot achieve its purpose in building this latter-day empire without imposing its own values upon regions that already possess their own cultural, moral and spiritual values.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad is not mine to argue, at least not in this context. But Mr Ayton's disingenuity in arguing essentially that America is guarding her empire but not building an empire does little justice to the truth.

N. Friedman - 12/28/2004

Well said

Van L. Hayhow - 12/28/2004

We went into Iraq to contol their oil? Really? Do you have anything to support this statement?

N. Friedman - 12/28/2004


I do not claim that the US is saintly. I claim that, along with the bad, there is far more good. Such is a very different thing. And my claim is made from the left, not from the right.

Regarding the connection between Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism, the connection is unequivical. Which is to say, while not all Anti-Zionists are Antisemitic, most - the vast, vast majority - are. And note, there is an unequivical link between the rise of Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism that can be traced back to the 19th Century. Such was noted, by among others, Nietzsche who said - and I am paraphrasing - that in direct proportion to the rise of nationalist sentiment among Jews, the goal of extirminating Jews becomes most pronounced among non-Jewish Europeans. Moreover, the rhetoric now employed by Europeans against Israel is borrowed, sometimes merely by substituting the word "Israel" for "Jew" and sometimes without any changes. You would think that if Antisemitism was not involved, people would not use such materials. And note: the Protocols is standard fair among Anti-Zionists which, you will note, explains the popularity of the book at the Durban "anti-racism" conference of September 2001. The famous historian of the destruction of the dhimmis, Bat Ye'or, has traced, rather definitively, in her monumental study, Islam and Dhimmitude, the origins of modern Antisemitism in the Anti-Zionist movement of the 19th Century. Which is to say, her research confirms what Nietzsche claimed in the 19th Century. Which is to say, your allegation is nonsense.

Regarding the connection between Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism, such is noted and explored with reference to Pakistan in Bernard-Henri Lévy's brilliant book, Who Killed Daniel Pearl. And note, many Anti-Zionists directly connect their allegations to the US against Israel. Mr. Lévy appears to agree with me.

I am glad that you see a connection between some leftists and Antisemitism. Such, you will note, is found in Marx who, evidently - at least based on his writings -, was a rabid Antisemite.

Arnold Shcherban - 12/27/2004

Abstaining from comments on your extatic reception of the article, I just would like to say a little about the pregnant with well-known politico-ideological conclusions parallel between Anti-Americanism and Anti-semitism.

First of all, hundreds of thousands of Jews in this country (me included), and perhaps several million, around the world, have now and have been having in the past little sympathy (many of them - a lot of disgust) for the US imperialistic foreign policy, especially towards the Third World countries, which is the main
cause of the old and the new Anti-Americanism.
So I guess their anti-Americanism goes hand in hand with their obvious anti-semitism.
Secondly, Anti-Israel, does not, even remotely, mean Anti-semitic (in case you entertain that parallel), as well as the protest against the wholesale support of any actions
of Israel goverments by this country's political elite does not amount to anti-Americanism.
Many deeply religious Jews don't accept Israel,
even as a "legitimate" socio-political formation, left alone some aspects of its foreign policy.
Thirdly, and most significant one, is a well-established fact of history and ideology that there is no Anti- that goes as much along with Anti-semitism, as Anti-Communism, in particular, and anti-Leftism, in general!
We can discuss the causes of such parallelism,
but the factual confirmation is abundant.
In Europe and the United States in Asia and Africa, in Latin America and elsewhere in the world, it is the ruling
elites or the powerful parties and groups of almost exclusively Right political orientation whose more or less murderous (depending on the country and the time) attacks against the communist and the leftists would simultaneously invoke the wave of Anti-semitism.
Speaking just of modern history and to name just major culprits: Italian fascists, Nazis, Catholic church during WWII, in general, and later in Poland, in particular, Black colonels in Greece, Nassir in Egypt, Shah in Iran, Saddam in Iraq (especially, when he was the US ally against Iran), fascist and neo-fascist regimes
in Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Chili, American Nazis, KKK, Right Cristian organizations, and the majority of Southern Republicans (not mentioning before 70s) were and still are: first - zoological anti-communists/leftists, second - anti-semits. And to say that the Right crowd mentioned never questioned the imperialist policies of the US goverments, except for being too liberal and soft, would be an understatement.
But I don't recall any communists or socialists (which are real LEFT), especially in this country responsible for anti-semitic actions and propaganda, unless one, deliberately or out of ignorance or stupidity, confuse anti-capitalist or anti-corporate, or anti-US-goverment ones with anti-semitism. On the contrary, these Leftists,
were the primary and perpetual targets of the anti-semitism, mostly as the result of their political views.

(It is also of no great social secret, that one of the sources of anti-semitic feelings among millions of white and black Americans (mostly white - to be fair) is the high percentage of Jews among the Left, in this country, and in Europe.)

Anti-leftism and anti-semitism - this is real and historically legimitate parallel.

Val Jobson - 12/27/2004

Where does this author get his information about European attitudes? From the anti-European American media propaganda machine? He pretends the USA is as white as snow and motivated only by the desire to spread democracy and goodness and light. Did the US kill 100,000 civilians in Iraq in order to bring them democracy; or to take over control of their oil? Do Americans continue to torture prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo and elsewhere to teach them how to behave democratically? Why doesn't the author mention the dictators and criminals that the US has nurtured and supported over the years; Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Shah of Iran, the current dictator of Uzbekistan; and the list goes on and on.

Americans, the world does not hate you for your freedom; they hate you for the evil that your government and your country has done; only a deluded fool would ignore this.

N. Friedman - 12/27/2004

This is a wonderful article with which I wholeheartedly agree. Indeed, Anti-americanism is a disease along with Antisemitism.