Book Description
From THE ENEMY AT HOME:
“In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11. … In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage—some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.
“I realize that this is a strong charge, one that no one has made before. But it is a neglected aspect of the 9/11 debate, and it is critical to understanding the current controversy over the ‘war against terrorism.’ … I intend to show that the left has actively fostered the intense hatred of America that has led to numerous attacks such as 9/11. If I am right, then no war against terrorism can be effectively fought using the left-wing premises that are now accepted doctrine among mainstream liberals and Democrats.”
Whenever Muslims charge that the war on terror is really a war against Islam, Americans hasten to assure them they are wrong. Yet as Dinesh D’Souza argues in this powerful and timely polemic, there really is a war against Islam. Only this war is not being waged by Christian conservatives bent on a moral crusade to impose democracy abroad but by the American cultural left, which for years has been vigorously exporting its domestic war against religion and traditional morality to the rest of the world.
D’Souza contends that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11 in two ways: by fostering a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies—especially traditional and religious ones— and by promoting, at home and abroad, an anti-American attitude that blames America for all the problems of the world.
Islamic anti-Americanism is not merely a reaction to U.S. foreign policy but is also rooted in a revulsion against what Muslims perceive to be the atheism and moral depravity of American popular culture. Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that secular American values are being imposed on their societies and that these values undermine religious belief, weaken the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of children. But it is not “America” that is doing this to them, it is the American cultural left. What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultural left considers progressive and liberating.
Taking issue with those on the right who speak of a “clash of civilizations,” D’Souza argues that the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims—and traditional peoples everywhere. The only way to win the struggle with radical Islam is to convince traditional Muslims that America is on their side.
We are accustomed to thinking of the war on terror and the culture war as two distinct and separate struggles. D’Souza shows that they are really one and the same. Conservatives must recognize that the left is now allied with the Islamic radicals in a combined effort to defeat Bush’s war on terror. A whole new strategy is therefore needed to fight both wars. “In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad,” D’Souza writes, “we must defeat the enemy at home.”
Customer Reviews:
It's justifiable homicide, of course.......2007-08-27
D'Souza's logic and syntax are impeccable, as always.
If I annoy Dinesh - Liberal that I am - or if I cause Dinesh to view me as a sinner, it is therefore my fault if Dinesh decides to blow up my house or even some other house that looks like it in my neighborhood.
Dinesh makes an persuasive argument in defense of Al Q'aida and grumpy old terrorists everywhere.
I recommend that all true Americans read his book and edumacate themselves immediately.
good questions.......2007-08-24
I don't know if the American left really are so unpatriotic that they are allying themselves with the terriorists. However, it is a good questions to asked.
I agree with the author in the analysis of the imposing American ideals onto other countries. But I believed it goes both ways. It is arrogance for the Conservatives to impose the American Ideal of Democracy onto the unwilling participants. It is also very arrogant of the sophisticated Hollywood crowd to impose their ideals of the freedom of choice and feminism onto the unwilling participants. It is ethnocentric view on both sides. There will always be someone that wants to break out of the mode in all the developing countries. That does not mean the mass majority are willing to give up their way of life as they know it.
Author stressed that most traditional societies does not agree with the liberal view of the world. The liberal view works for the west, it doesn't necessary work for the rest. If the conservatives are guilty of imposing views on others, the Liberals are equally, if not more forcefully impose their liberal values onto the rest of the world that do not want them, via internet, media, entertainments. Conservative use military force, liberal uses softer but more pervasive method in infiltrating the rest of the world by....."Americanization" Combined with the unwanted morals of the liberal, and the military force, this make us the prime target for any counntries that have any grievence against the US.
Provocative but thought provoking.......2007-08-24
Dinesh D'Souza has written a powerful and provocative book, containing a unique perspective difficult to attain other than by an author straddling his traditional culture of origin and the newly adopted progressive culture of his current environment. While many readers will be offended by the book's central thesis of the left's putative contribution to the moral decay of American society, the book has much to offer in terms of understanding strengths of the Islamic family structure alien to Western ethnocentric analysis. Despite some minor factual errors regarding the Spanish Inquisition and the role of Islam in science, the data in the book are in the main sound. Its up to the reader to react to the analysis. Sean Penn might look elsewhere.
Well Worth Your Reading Time.......2007-08-13
I approached this book with much skepticism; by the time I was mid-way through the book, I was much intrigued with the author's thesis. Toward the end, however, I was of the mind that the author's deductions and conclusions were too much of a stretch.
I believe the D'souza correctly diagnosed several key points, which escape many mainstream thinkers:
1. The driving passion behind the masterminds of 911 was not religious, but cultural.
2. Most Americans, at all levels, tend to be rather ignorant about other cultures and simplistically believe that what we think is good should naturally be welcomed by other cultures. In reality, as many scholars have pointed out, democratic institutions must be home grown for them to take hold. People in foreign lands perceive America through the lens of American pop culture, which has become very coarse and depraved. We also "export" ideas such as strident feminist, abortion and homosexual agendas which, even in our own society are controversial, are viewed with suspicion and contempt in other traditional societies.
3. The key to winning this war is winning the hearts of traditional Muslims. Traditional Muslims have more in common with conservatives than many think. Most traditional Muslims do not subscribe to the fringe teachings of the Taliban and Al Queda; they are God-fearing people who want to live in a society where the traditional family values are respected. They are natural sympathizers of the radical Islamists, although they are not active supporters. We should not attack their religion and drive them right into the arms of the radicals. Many in the West tend to look at certain things, such as "honor killing", in the Muslim world, and conclude that Islam is outdated, and its followers barbaric. In reality, such practices are not the norm in the traditional Muslim society. On the other hand, a traditional Muslim probably finds partial birth abortion as revulsive as we find honor killing.
What I am not ready to agree with the author was his assertion that Bin Ladin and the Left in this country are in a conscious alliance. Regardless of how much their short-term goals and interests coincide with each other, there is neither logic nor evidence for an alliance to exist. The Left in this country are a pathetic bunch who want power, but it is one of those inevitables of a Western-style democracy.
EXTREMELY educational.......2007-07-30
This book did more to educate me about the 'whys' behind the current world situation than any of the many books I have read. Yes, there are many opinions given that sound like facts, but it is impossible to 'know' everything that is going on in this extremely complex situation. I am glad that the writer has gone out on a limb to push our thinking, to stretch us to believe that we may be part of the problem. Gee!! Hard to believe that, huh? I am in fact a conservative, but I don't 'blame' the left. It's like the boiled frog syndrome -- place a frog in boiling water and it will jump out. Place it in warm water and turn up the temperature slowly and it will die. What has happened to this country in the last 30+ years is like turning up the temperature slowly. We HAVE become a decadent society. Anyone who doesn't believe that has his head in the sand. Conservatives are as much to 'blame' as liberals because we have done such a lousy job of articulating our thoughts, and making them connect to the current world situation. The Bush administration has done a TERRIBLE job of educating the country. While I agree with much of what the Bush administration has done, I hold them 100% accountable for not providing a clear understanding of the world situation, and why America must do what it is doing. Perhaps no one in the administration has read D'Souza's book. It is surely not 100% right, but it sure helps put things in a lot better perspective than anything else I have read. Now the strategies HAVE to change. You cannot kill all the radicals. The Bush administration has been woefully weak in understanding the larger context for the Muslim violence around the world. We, the people of the USA, must become more educated, and FORCE our elected representatives to be more thoughtful, and less antagonistic to 'the other side'. Otherwise we have turned over to our children a terrible future.
Book Description
No survey can capture the breadth and depth of the anti-Americanism that has swept Europe in recent years. From ultraconservative Bavarian grandmothers to thirty-year-old socialist activists in Greece, from globalization opponents to corporate executives--Europeans are joining in an ever louder chorus of disdain for America. For the first time, anti-Americanism has become a European lingua franca.
In this sweeping and provocative look at the history of European aversion to America, Andrei Markovits argues that understanding the ubiquity of anti-Americanism since September 11, 2001, requires an appreciation of such sentiments among European elites going back at least to July 4, 1776.
While George W. Bush's policies have catapulted anti-Americanism into overdrive, particularly in Western Europe, Markovits argues that this loathing has long been driven not by what America does, but by what it is. Focusing on seven Western European countries big and small, he shows how antipathies toward things American embrace aspects of everyday life--such as sports, language, work, education, media, health, and law--that remain far from the purview of the Bush administration's policies. Aggravating Europeans' antipathies toward America is their alleged helplessness in the face of an Americanization that they view as inexorably befalling them.
More troubling, Markovits argues, is that this anti-Americanism has cultivated a new strain of anti-Semitism. Above all, he shows that while Europeans are far apart in terms of their everyday lives and shared experiences, their not being American provides them with a powerful common identity--one that elites have already begun to harness in their quest to construct a unified Europe to rival America.
Customer Reviews:
European Anti-Americanism pre dates Bush Jr.......2007-08-22
I read this book over the weekend and it left me feeling sad, angry, and worried. Anti Americanism in Europe pre-dates the Iraq war and having experienced it I can say it does compare to the anti Semitism and racism blacks and Jews have been subjected to. Most Europeans see their way of life: generous welfare state benefits which were made possible after WWII due in large part to American trade policies, threatened by globalization which they see as being led by America. As they should be the up-and coming economic powers like India and China will roll over Europe unless they change their economic ways. Fabian Socialism is a failure; the EC's own data proves it. Even the French are beginning to realize this. I wish President Sarkozy good luck. So many French brands have vanished in my lifetime here. Christian Dior shirts. Citroen & Peugeot cars, I remember when French fashion companies owned the U.S. market, today they are almost all gone. This happened due to high taxes and excessive regulation during the Mitterrand years. Part of the problem is the largely left wing European news media & also the European education system. I saw a German textbook once blaming Capitalism from everything from pollution (have they forgotten the pig pen the former communist regime in East Germany left?) to high cell phone rates. I once asked a man from Hamburg "The Germans did billions in damage to the Soviet/Russian economy during WWII which can never be repaid. What if Putin starts to bully Europe and Russian gangster type businessmen begin extorting European governments for unfavorable economic concessions? Or begin buying up European assets and saying they will pay pennies on the dollar or else. What will you do?" He replied America will never allow it to happen.
Scholarly Overview.......2007-08-18
This is a good book for those with an interest in the phenomenon of European anti-Americanism, but the potential reader should be aware that it has essentially the flavor of an academic text. That said, it is a thoroughly convincing and well-documented overview of the subject.
Its only shortcoming is that Prof. Markovits seems to want to lump it in with anti-Semitism, to which he devotes an entirely unnecessary chapter, as an example of mere cultural bigotry. I personally think anti-Americanism is more than that, and that Americans could do well to ask themselves if some of these sentiments might warrant a little bit of introspection.
In broad terms, is our country a positive force in the world, advancing the progress of civilization and the quality of life for everyone; or are we merely wealthy and powerful, motivated only to increase that wealth and power without regard to anyone else or any higher purpose. Regretfully, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find examples of the former, but easy to find examples of the latter.
Uncouth Europe.......2007-07-18
This book does not pretend to be a history but an argument into the nature of anti-Americanism. It is, if you like, a lengthy (and by and large convincing) Op-Ed. The basic argument is this: anti-Americanism (an emotion masquerading as analysis) is everywhere in the Europe of today. It "is unifying West Europeans more than any other political emotion--with the exception of a common hostility toward Israel. In today's West Europe these two closely related antipathies are now considered proper etiquette. They constitute common fare among West Europe's cultural and media elites, but also throughout society itself from London to Athens and from Stockholm to Rome." Furthermore, in today's Europe "by being anti-American, paradoxically, one adheres to a prejudice that ipso facto, seems to confer on its bearer a stamp not of intolerance but of legitimate resister and opponent against a truly powerful force in the world." Someone who is anti-American is (by definition) "good" and "European"; someone who is (conversely) American or pro-American is "bad", "non-European", and (increasingly although Markovits does not dwell on this racist phenomenon) "Asian".
The America depicted in European discourse does not, of course, have anything to do with the actual America. In European discourse, America "is regarded as "dangerous, commercial, nationalistic, undemocratic, antiwelfare, crude, religious, puritanical, vulgar" (and of course irresistibly attractive to Europeans who are its exact opposite). This is not a picture of nation-state that ever existed or exists; it is the picture of God and Satan (with Europeans as God and Americans as Satan). It should thus not surprise us that when bad things happen to Satan, Europeans can barely hide their glee. In October of 2001, Markovits relates that European intellectual began to tell their audience that "Americans were finally receiving a long overdue punishment for all their misdeeds in the past; that the whole thing was really no big deal because many more Americans lost their lives in traffic accidents; that the destruction of the Twin Towers benefited New York aesthetically; that the Israeli Mossad was behind all this; that the entire event had been staged by the American government" and on and on. Much of this hateful discourse is with us still.
And Markovits points out that this antipathy is not returned by Americans. Quite the contrary. Not only do we want closer ties with Europe (Europeans want to sever theirs with us) but (as Markovits points out) it is quite simply impossible to imagine that, had the Groupe Islamique Armee succeeded in crashing Air France Airbus into the Eiffel Tower on December 24, 1994 the American discourse about Europe in general and France in particular would have been filled with anything but solidarity.
Where Markovits and I part company is in his seeing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism as twin brothers. I think there is, indeed, a relation between the two "isms" but I don't think that America is the "new Jew" in Europe. I agree with him that "clusters of assumptions embedded in our languages and cultures pre-select how we think about the world." And it is here (in my opinion) that there is the connection between anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. Europeans have, after all, had two thousand years of conditioning in which to think and speak of a people (the Jews) as omni-present, all-powerful, all-evil, and yet completely seductive to the (innocent and good) Europeans. This is the stuff of classic anti-Semitism--the kind that became (by and large) illegitimate after the Holocaust. But the cultural tropes do not go away simply because you see what a way of thinking has wrought; language especially does not change overnight. And so Europeans (in my opinion) needed a new bogeyman on whom to vent their spleen. And who better than Mr. Big--the all-powerful United States; the only country left standing as it were post 1945? That, I think is the connection, between the two hatreds but it is not a connection Markovits explores--probably because he does not agree with me.
Markovits concludes by pointing out that anti-Americanism is today the only thing unifying all the EU member states and, indeed, the only thing unifying the peoples within those nation states. There is thus every incentive for European leaders to fan the flames of anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism allows European leaders to keep their jobs and to try to create a "European" identity that (without the Other of America) quite simply does not exist.
If Markovits is right, this virulent anti-Americanism will be with us for many years to come.
Thoughtful analysis.......2007-07-14
It's perfectly fine for some folks to consider themselves rivals of other folks. And I'm not too concerned about such attitudes between Europeans and Americans. Still, there is a point at which such attitudes can become counterproductive and lead to very serious mischaracterizations, demonization, and open strife.
This book, by Andrei Markovits, has plenty of material about these issues. I found it interesting to discover that Markovits is originally from Timisoara, a city I've been to a couple of times. And I also found it interesting to see that Markovits, like myself, is politically a liberal and has reacted to the fact that to be considered a "progressive" today, it's almost essential to have credentials as an anti-American and an anti-Zionist.
As Markovits explains near the start of his book, an aversion to America is "unifying West Europeans more than any other political emotion - with the exception of a common hostility toward Israel." And the attitudes towards Israel are obviously not simply due to its ties to the United States or its "occupation" of land. Britain, Spain, and France have ties to the United States and are "occupying" Ulster, the Basque, and Corsica respectively, but "no European academic has attempted to boycott British" or French or Spanish universities for this!
At what point do we have "real" anti-Americanism, not just relatively benign rivalry? Markovits cites Joffe, who says the elements of the real thing are stereotypization, denigration, ascriptions of omnipotence and conspiracy, and obsession.
I know that some elements of American society are present in Europe. Plenty of people in Europe now speak English, and there are something like 1650 hamburger restaurants in Germany (Markovits reminds us that there are also about 12,000 Turkish fast food shops and 23,000 Italian restaurants in Germany). Still, I don't see this as scary from a liberal perspective!
There is a very thoughtful chapter on anti-Semitism. And perhaps the most serious point is that European anti-Zionists rarely show much concern for Arabs or Muslims. Instead, they tended to ignore killings of Muslims by Hindu mobs, and they often supported Serbian attacks on Bosnian Muslims, given that the United States supported the Bosnians.
For many years, I avoided using the term "anti-Semitism." It seemed too vague. But I finally have decided to use it in situations where I see people participate in a gratuitous war against the Jews. On the other hand, this is probably not a very good definition of anti-Semitism on my part. Markovits, by way of comparison, says that "above all, anti-Semitism is an obsession that blames all Jews for evil deeds, dangerous acts, and subversive behavior independent of how each individual Jew - or even Jews as a collective - behaves in reality." As Markovits further explains, there are some clearly anti-Semitic "dimensions" to some "criticisms" of Israel. These include the `singling out' of Israel, the double standards, the constant comparison and equation of Israel with the National Socialists, and the utilization of classic anti-Semitic depictions and stereotypes.
Not all European nations have had the same frequency of anti-Semitic violence. And I think that's a good way to look at the relationships between such violence and, say, anti-Semitic propaganda. For example, Finland, Luxemburg, Ireland, and Portugal have had the least anti-Semitic violence, while France, Belgium, and Holland have had the most.
Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe, Markovits finds less anti-Americanism and less anti-Zionism, with the main anti-Semitic theme being that Jews are Bolsheviks.
The author quotes some amazing comments by Deborah Orr about Israel. Writing in the Independent, Orr tops some gratuitously malicious statements about Israel with the following: "If the Jews `continue to insist that everyone with a word to say against Israel is an anti-Semite, [they are] going to find one day that the world is once more divided neatly between anti-Semites and Jews.'" I think that the sort of argument Orr has supplied is indeed going to lead to trouble. Do we say that the world is divided into anti-Tutsis and Tutsis? Markovits says that, "Oxford University dons would never have dreamt of banning Russians, Croats, Serbs, Spaniards, Sudanese, or even Ulster Protestants from their laboratories." But this did in fact happen to an Israeli at Oxford.
We see some other examples of hypocritical language. Even the Europeans rarely say something such as "I hate Bush, but I do not mind America's existence." On the other hand, Israel's existence is questioned all the time. When Tom Paulin describes Israel as a "'historical obscenity' that `never had a right to exist,'" some folks defend him on the grounds of "free speech." But when Mona Baker fires people for not being sufficiently anti-Israeli, many of these same folks defend her right to do what she pleases, throwing free speech to the winds. I think this is an excellent point by Markovits.
I think that European anti-Americanism has resulted in some denial of reality. Markovits cites a poll by the European Commission showing that 59% of Europeans see Israel as being a great threat to world peace. That ranks Israel first, ahead of Iran, North Korea, the United States, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, in that order. And such ideas are coming from the political Left, not the political Right: "the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, and the BBC" were not "under the influence of the right-wing extremists of the National Front."
I found this book very interesting, and I recommend it.
Excellence in Political Science.......2007-07-09
"Uncouth Nation" makes not only for factual and intelligent research into anti-Americanism, it is also a fascinating read. As Markovits delves into the history of anti-Americanism in Europe, noting the mixture of myth and fact that makes up a great deal of European perceptions, he allows the reader to understand the true nature of anti-American sentiment. It is not only a product of the current presidential administration, but a much older result of "American exceptionalism" and, to a degree, anti-Semitic sentiment. All in all, a superior read from one of America's academic treasures.
Book Description
It has never been more important for Americans to understand why the world both hates and loves the United States. In What They Think of Us, a remarkable group of writers from the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and Latin America describes the world's profoundly ambivalent attitudes toward the United States--before and since 9/11.
While many people around the world continue to see the United States as a model despite the Iraq war and the war on terror, the U.S. response to 9/11 has undoubtedly intensified global anti-Americanism. What They Think of Us reveals that substantial goodwill toward America still exists, but that this sympathy is in peril--and that there is an immense gap between how Americans view their country and how it is viewed abroad.
Drawing on broad research and personal experience while avoiding anecdotalism and polemics, the writers gathered here combine political, cultural, and historical analysis to explain how people in different parts of the world see the United States. They show that not all anti-Americanism can be blamed on U.S. foreign policy. America is disliked not just for what it does but also for what it is, and perceptions of both are profoundly shaped--and sometimes warped--by the domestic realities of the countries where anti-Americanism thrives. In addition to analyzing America's battered global reputation, these writers propose ways the United States and other countries can build better relations through greater understanding and respect.
Book Description
Boyles, who has lived and worked in France for several years, examines the internal crises--a falling birthrate, an expanding Muslim minority, economic stagnation, a lessening of international prestige--that have changed the personality of what was once La Belle France.
Download Description
In this bitingly funny and insightful polemic, Denis Boyles, who has lived and worked in France for several years, examines the internal crises-a falling birthrate, an expanding Muslim minority, economic stagnation, a lessening of international prestige-that have altered the personality of what was once "La Belle France," transforming it into a nation afflicted with status anxiety. He explains how a country that endlessly repeats its credentials as America's oldest ally has become one of our most resolute enemies, wielding the biggest weapon in its arsenal-the European Union-against the interests of an America that it fears and envies.
Customer Reviews:
Blinkered jingoism + intellectual dishonesty = this book.......2007-04-15
I wasn't going to waste the time dumping on this piece of dyspeptic intellectual chaff -- which was given to me, presumably as a joke, by a buddy of mine; but when I read that the author had urged his minions to give him 5-* ratings whether or not they'd read the book -- well, that tore it.
Any American ridiculing the ruling class in any other country -- whether by "ruling class" you mean "the political leadership" or "the wealthy" -- is so mind-numbingly hypocritical that it beggars the imagination. Take a look at *our* ruling class -- defined either way -- and we take a backseat to nobody else for egoism, egotism, narcissism, or sheer dishonesty. The gang in power in Washington -- who brought you "Mission Accomplished" three years ago (or, to put it in better perspective, 3000 American military lives ago, or several hundred billion dollars ago) -- has systematically and methodically lied its way into power, and systematically and methodically abused that power by heaping lie upon lie, all with the arrogance and self-righteousness of men (and it is mostly men) without scruples or conscience.
You support the men who have built a vast palace of glass, Mr. Boyles; how dare you throw stones? How dare you accuse anyone else of duplicity or cowardice while you support a gang of duplicitous cowards?
American ego.......2007-03-16
After reading the majority of comments posted for this book, it is clear that most Americans think you are either with them or against. No middle way. If you don't agree with every American whim (even tragic ones such as Iraq), you are anti-US. Sick and tired of it. Get a grip
We Are At War With America.......2006-11-24
With those words Francois Mitterand urged French support for the Maastricht Treaty and the European Union. And Denis Boyle goes on to prove that Mitterand meant every word. Vile France, as almost every reviewer reminded us, is kind to the people of France. Well-- understanding of their limitations might be a better phrase, but for those who live within Le Beltway: the journalists, the Labor Unions and their workers, the Universities and their jaded left-wing ageing Professoriate, the service crew such as waiters, hops, and clerks, Boyles is as incisive and biting as Silent Bob!
Want to knew why Chirac will be in jail after his Presidency, read here! Want to know who's rooting for (and conniving that) America takes a huge hit in Iraq, read here. Why the EU isn't about Europe, but about France and Germany, read here. Why the UN is a pretty useless place, read here.
This book is every Francophile's nightmare because it goes after the French with no John-Kerry like nuance whatsoever but a whole lot of funny, funny stuff. It's Boyles' version of South Park set in Paris.
This is only half of it!.......2005-12-31
Great book! With gallic humor!
The French do not like interference especially by American. They tried to kill me three times because, during WWII I discoverd their plans, and for having helped Ho Chi Minh. Because I was born in France they did not considered me a US Citizen. According to them I was a traitor subject to their rules until I die. I did not return to France for 43 years, only after those threatening me had died!
René J. Defourneaux, Author
The Winking Fox/The Tracks of the Fox
rene@defourneaux.com
This is not a book that bashes the French,,,.......2005-12-31
...but it does take a good poke at the French ruling elite -- something the French themselves do in their own books incidentally. The author makes this very clear in his introduction: The 'France' in the title is the 'ongoing invention of its...elitist, self-satisfied, self-obsessed...Paris-dwelling governing class' who, the author goes on to point out, treat the typical French citizen with 'cynical contempt.' Surely many French men and women would agree!
I received this book for Christmas as it was on my list. However I am quite surprised at the way these reviews are done. So I shall write one of my own as many of these seem to be a collection of disingenuous rants.
Most of the one-star 'reviews' here seem to be by people who quite obviously have not read the book but assume anything anti-French must be a right-wing rant. That's very odd. I reckon the American left must be reduced to thinking well of anyone who speaks ill of the US. (The author of this book points out that French behaviour toward the US is the same now as it was under Clinton and other presidents.)
But what is even more odd is the lengths to which some of these people have gone. 'Jonathan' for example quotes a line from page 144 of the book and says:
"Let me give just one example of what I mean. On Page 144 he says:
"'The economy of the eurozone rests on the solid bedrock of irrational faith.'
"Okay, so far - so good. I think I know where he's going here and I expect he'll finish it off with some good solid examples of the European's irrational economic faith. But here's what he says next:
"'Take, for example, the EU's economic stability pact, an agreement intended to make nations obey the God-given law of the checkbook. But don't take it seriously, because nobody else does.'
"And in the next paragraph he goes on to talk about something else.
"So, am I crazy?"
To which I would answer, no -- but 'Jonathan' is either a lazy reader or a dishonest one, since the author goes on for several pages through an entire section of a chapter to discuss the European stability pact, giving a summary of its history and the reasons for and results of its ineffectiveness.
I found this book to be witty and insightful. I am giving it 4 stars instead of 5 because it lacks an index and is frankly too brief. I wish there had been more. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a quick and balanced look at why the French govenment does what it does in relation to the US.
Book Description
Anti-American feeling is at an all-time high. Other nations and cultures have singled out our businesses, government, and way of life for harsh scorn, widespread resentment, even violence.
Rebuilding Brand America is an exploration of anti-Americanism, from its causes and earliest manifestations to current efforts to mitigate it. Martin explains why many of these efforts failed, and reviews the many prescriptions formulated by more than a dozen task forces. He then bases his recommendations on the best practices of leading companies, and on his own 32-year career in public relations and brand management.
Rebuilding Brand America features exclusive interviews with journalists, media and PR professionals, and executives from global icons like McDonald's, Wal-Mart, and FedEx, and analyzes the groundbreaking work of thought leaders such as:
* Pollster John Zogby, whose insights into the Muslim world continue to inform policy in the Middle East
* Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria, whose essay on the 9/11 attacks shed new light on the Islamic mind
* Keith Reinhard, president of Business for Diplomatic Action, a non-partisan business group organized to fight anti-Americanism by addressing its causes in U.S. business practice
Based on a deep understanding of anti-Americanism's roots, Rebuilding Brand America is a call to action that will help U.S.-based companies prosper in global markets.
Customer Reviews:
Perceptive, clear understanding of reality.......2007-05-24
Dick Martin's book is a very interesting, almost "prismatic" overview of the multiple issues driving anti-american sentiment in the world today. When first confronted with this type of challenge, American Business either searches for "scapegoats" or attempts to derive comfort from it's growing overseas profits, not seeing the warning signs of what's to come.
I've just seen that Dick Martin will be running a webcast on this topic with the American Management Association on June 20th. Check out their website for more information.
Best book on important topic.......2007-05-12
Several books have failed to see, or make, the points that Dick Martin develops in his clear, logical and hopeful book about the future of U.S. diplomacy and the role of American business. Martin draws from long and useful experience at AT&T for insights that make this especially valuable to people in business and business communications.
A major challenge for American business.......2007-03-30
Can there be a more daunting challenge than restoring positive perceptions of the United States abroad? With 23 decades behind it, America in the 21st century faces a new and different landscape with a mix of confidence and uncertainty not unlike that of any young adult. Yet the gulfs among America and other nations seem to grow larger, while the confidence borne of common values appears to be evaporating in an increasingly fragmented world. Even among the English-speaking peoples, today's USA frequently stands alone.
Brilliantly researched, gracefully written and compellingly argued, Dick Martin's latest book taps a lifetime of experience in communications and attitudes to present a crisp summary of what went wrong, what's under way, and what might yet work. Throughout it all, Martin underscores the central point that this is more than an issue for pollsters and pundits. American business bears a significant responsibility for today's condition and faces a largely untapped opportunity for positive action.
Coping with Anti-Americanism.......2007-03-10
Dick Martin's book clearly drives home to the reader the problems that the US faces due to the widespread anti-Americanism sentiment that currently prevails throughout the world. The book is well-balanced, thoroughly researched and timely. He offers a plan to prod government and business to begin the long, difficult process to reverse the loss of prestige and influence that haunts the US today.
This important book should be read and taken seriously by people throughout government and business. I highly recommend it as a must read.
A prescription to start healing our wounded reputation.......2007-02-25
As a fellow practitioner at a competing major telecommunications company,I witnessed firsthand Dick Martin's corporate PR skills. His latest book is must reading for anyone who understands the stakes involved in healing our nation's wounded reputation. Martin's diagnosis makes the case for why business should get involved, showing how global companies are better positioned than government to help. His holistic presciption for a new kind of American public diplomacy includes strategies for engagement as well as information. From his corporate experience, Martin understands that effective communication requires more than advertising or packaging or spinning messages. Successful companies -- and nations -- "live their brands" and do whatever is necessary to protect them.
Book Description
Revel probes the origins of the notion that America is the source of all evil: imperialistic, greedy, ruthlessly competitive--a hyperpower whose riches are acquired at the expense of the Third World.
Customer Reviews:
A Satisfying Read and revelatory for many, I'm sure........2007-08-31
Yes. As others have noted, it was a best seller in France. Revel has since died and I'm sorry I never had to chance to see or hear him on television. The book takes the oft-repeated criticisms by his fellow citizens and punctures them for their hypocrisy, or misunderstanding, or willful misrepresentations, as appropriate. We know with the election of Sarkozy who had, prior to the election, made clear his desire for close French-American relations, and his subsequent win that it was simply not true that all French despise us. Yes. They value their culture and want to protect it; but as Revel points out much of the criticism is based upon their own disappointments and a desire for protection of self-image. He writes in an interesting way, using ridicule and sarcasm in an amusing way.
He also lays waste to the oft-heard accusation that only recently have the French begun to hate us and that it's because of the Iraq war. He makes it clear that anti-Americanism started after the 2nd World War and increased "ten fold" during the Viet Nam war, which he points out was a "direct offshoot of European colonial expansion" specifically the French Indochina War, a war during which she asked for and sometimes received American help. France then handed...via the Geneva Accords....the North of Vietnam to the Communists. He also correctly points out that much of the heft behind anti-Americanism in Europe, generally, comes from the Socialists who detest the huge success of our capitalism.
A good read.
Good book, worth the read but gets a bit bogged down............2007-07-16
I read this book about 3 years ago and recently was discussing it which prompted me to reread it.
This is a good book and worth the read but do not expect an unbiased equivocation on the roots of anti-Americanism. The author who is obviously very well versed on American foreign policy artfully cites critiques of those who attack the United States and is sufficiently deconstructive and too the point most of the time. The reason for the 3 star review is Mr. Revel essentially turned what started out as an excellent book into a cheerleading manual bogged down with repeated themes and ridiculing attack.
To me the way he blatantly ignores some of the more popular criticisms of American foreign policy hurt is argument. I simply feel his attempts at convincing could have been better if he rounded his argument more fully and was at least slightly even handed, or tried to give the impression of being unbiased. The book ends up reading more like propaganda than an honest critique.
The new crook's last refuge.......2007-05-24
I read this book some months ago, here in Brazil.Living in a country where anti-americanism is govern's politic, I must congratulate the author of this book.Being nationalism out of fashion today, the new crook's last refuge is anti-americanism.
The big problem of this book, is to be made for european, not brazilian or any other reality.Even so, this book is a classic, about anti-americanism.
A to the Point and Scathing Review of Eurpoean Hypocrisy.......2006-09-10
I echo the reviews of most others. This book was great. Revel doesn't make excuses for America's weaknesses, he simply points out that Europeans should not make excuses for theirs either. The majority of the worlds problems, he states, stem from inadequacy of European foreign policy in centuries past. We cannot simply presume that there was no turmoil in the world until 1776 and the appearance of some new country in western hemisphere.
Revel expertly points to the hypocrisy of other French authors when they are all too willing to buy into the weaknesses of the United States while ignoring their own problems. French society is the focus of this book in terms of its anti-Americanism, but the entire study could easily be applied to any other country.
Anbti-Americanism by Jean Francois Revel.......2006-03-17
Translated from french, this is a well written, thoughtful review of how the rest of the world- especially the french and europeans- views America and why. I found the contradictions in their thinking especially interesting.Revel's opinion of the challenges from radical Islam might confirm your worst fears, as it does mine.
If you, like me, ever wonder why we're so resented when we have been so genereous with our treasure and lives, you will find this explanation human, frustrating, and even funny and sad.
Book Description
Anti-Americanism has been the subject of much commentary but little serious research. In response, Peter J. Katzenstein and Robert O. Keohane have assembled a distinguished group of experts, including historians, polling-data analysts, political scientists, anthropologists, and sociologists, to explore anti-Americanism in depth, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The result is a book that probes deeply a central aspect of world politics that is frequently noted yet rarely understood.
Katzenstein and Keohane identify several quite different anti-Americanisms-liberal, social, sovereign-nationalist, and radical. Some forms of anti-Americanism respond merely to what the United States does, and could change when U.S. policies change. Other forms are reactions to what the United States is, and involve greater bias and distrust. The complexity of anti-Americanism, they argue, reflects the cultural and political complexities of American society. The analysis in this book leads to a surprising discovery: there are as many ways to be anti-American as there are ways to be American.
Customer Reviews:
Good but it should talk about power and American hegemony.......2007-04-18
Anti-Americanisms in World Politics an edited volume by Peter J. Katzenstein and Robert O. Keohane is an excellent contribution to the debate on global anti-American attitudes. Despite the breadth and depth of this work, it fails to consider American hegemony and military power as a cause of anti-American sentiment. In framing the work, the authors distinguish between "what the United States is" and "what the United States does" but this general dichotomy does not account for the effects of American hard power preeminence. By its very nature, power is threatening to other nations regardless of its form as either an untapped or actualized asset of statecraft. Although the authors suggest that "sovereign-nationalist Anti-Americanism" is one of the four causes for anti-American attitudes, the authors frame this hostility primarily as a challenge to national identity rather than a manifestation of hard power or security competition. Although this identity-based framework is plausible, it is not sufficient to explain foreign responses to American power. In chapter 4 of the work Chiozza conducts an empirical study of the causes for anti-Americanism and finds that U.S. troop presence is not a significant factor contributing to negative attitudes towards the United States. Although this lack of significant correlation could be interpreted as evidence that American military power does not provoke anti-Americanism, such a conclusion is not warranted. In the absence of a positive finding, the opposite conclusion that troop levels do not matter is equally plausible. Unlike armies of the past, the American military does not necessarily need to have a "boots on the ground" footprint to exercise its power. Power projection and long-range strike capabilities make such traditional metrics irrelevant and unrepresentative for American power and may heighten foreign resentment of American power disparity. Clearly, a more finely honed quantitative study of this phenomenon that accounts for factors such as proximity to the United States, alliance patters, recent wars, types of forces, size and quality of the host nation's armed forces, and the duration of troop deployments is needed to quantify such a proposition. Until such a model is perfected, responses to power are still an intriguing and parsimonious independent variable to describe and predict anti-Americanism. Such a prediction that power and power disparities are a driving force behind anti-American attitudes is consistent with both realist predictions and historical models. As realists predict, power creates uncertainties and insecurities and ultimately threatens the existence of states. Assuming this level of intense security competition, it is only reasonable to expect anti-Americanism as a response to U.S. power. This model is supported by historical examples such as Rome, Ancient China, and Imperial Britain where weaker powers have reviled the predominant power and influence of stronger states. Although such a power-centric explanation for anti-Americanism may appear repugnant or overly simplistic, it does have theoretical and historical relevance and is worthy of additional study and inclusion in Katzenstein and Keohane's otherwise impressive work.
The types of Anti-Americanism.......2007-01-16
The central idea of this book is that there is not one all encompassing type of anti- Americanism but rather a number of different kinds, each of which has its own causes and dangers. Neil Gross in the 'Boston Globe' summarizes the four major types of Anti- Americanisms presented in this book as follows:
"The first, liberal anti-Americanism, appears in democracies like France or England. Here opposition to American policies often involves the charge that the United States is being hypocritical by not living up to its professed values and ideals -- values its critics share. When Europeans express outrage over the treatment of prisoners by US military personnel in Guantanamo Bay, or in secret detention centers abroad, these are examples of liberal anti-Americanism. How can a country that says it stands for freedom condone such obvious abuses of human rights?
The second strain, social anti-Americanism, comes from critics of the United States who are staunch supporters of the social welfare state, and thus oppose American economic policy because it promotes laissez-faire ideals and erodes welfare state protections. Social anti-Americanism is at play when Bolivian President Evo Morales, for example, rails against American-led globalization on the grounds that, among other things, it exposes people to the vicissitudes of the market.
More dangerous, according to the editors, are the two remaining strains. Sovereign-nationalist anti-Americanism, which may be found in parts of Latin America and Asia, involves opposition to American geopolitical and cultural dominance on the grounds that they are threats to national identity and strategic interests, as can be seen in Chinese saber-rattling over Taiwan. Radical anti-Americanism, meanwhile, of the kind typically associated with Islamic fundamentalism, holds, according to Katzenstein and Keohane, that "America's identity" must be "transformed, either from within or without."
Each of these types of Anti- Americanism is considered within the context of a different society. The experts that Katzenstein and Keohane include are as follows:John Bowen, Washington University in St. Louis
Giacomo Chiozza, University of California, Berkeley Pierangelo Isernia, University of Siena Alastair Iain Johnston, Harvard University
Peter J. Katzenstein, Cornell University David M. Kennedy, Stanford UniversityRobert O. Keohane, Princeton University Marc Lynch, Williams College Doug McAdam, Stanford University Sophie Meunier, Princeton University Daniela Stockmann, University of Michigan
The inclusion of such a rich variety of scholars covering so many different areas helps provide a general overall sense of the varieties of Anti- Americanism. Their work also enables a dispelling of the illusion that Anti-Americanism is a new phenomenom and not one with its own long and varied history.
However it seems to me that the fourth type of Anti-Americanism the kind which aims at erasing American social and cultural identity, and which is deeply connected with the 'backwardness' of the hating- societies presents a dimension of the phenomenom America has not faced to the same extent in the past.
In this regard Anti- Americanism is not merely an attitude or set of opinions to be contended with through media means, but the embodiment of an overall aggressive effort to undermine the values and character of American society.
In this sense this particular kind of Anti- Americanism seems at present at the heart of the struggle to preserve not simply the land of the free and home of the brave, but all societies in which individuals are valued as individuals, and human dignity is inherently bound up with freedoms the Closed Societies of the world would deny.
Book Description
Original reports and observations that analyze the causes and impact of anti-Americanism in areas throughout the world. It distinguishes between rational and specific critiques of American foreign policy and American society on the one hand, and that brand of hostile predisposition that blames the United States for a wide variety of grievances and frustrations that are at best tangentially related to its policies, institutions, or way of life.
Customer Reviews:
An excellent collection of essays.......2006-07-09
This book begins with a fine introduction by Paul Hollander, who points out that one aspect of anti-Americanism is a bogus attempt to equate the United States or its policies with those of National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union, or Arab terrorism. And he mentions some of the fiercer domestic "criticism" of our nation.
James Ceasar then discusses the philosophical origins of anti-Americanism in Europe. We see the image of the United States as MacDonald's, Disneyland, and Microsoft. But that's unfair, of course. I rarely eat at MacDonald's: much better hamburgers are available elsewhere. I dislike Disneyland, but I do like some of our fine National Parks, including Yellowstone. And I do use Microsoft products, even though I admit that they have some serious inherent flaws. There is no need to blame America for one's dislike of some of its less attractive products of course. The rest of the world is at least as responsible.
Anthony Daniels talks about French anti-Americanism. He explains that French is no longer the language of all civilized men. Instead, it is the sixth most common European language, with fewer native speakers than English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and German.
Michael Mosbacher and Digby Anderson write about British anti-Americanism. That includes a discussion of Harold Pinter, who regards America as waging war against the rest of the world. And we see combined effects of radicalized Islamists and a left-wing anti-American elite, as well as a few folks on the far right. Michael Freund's chapter is on Germany, and he makes an interesting between opposition to modernity in National Socialist times, and anti-American anti-modernist tendencies today.
Patrick Clawson and Barry Rubin tell us about anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Some say that much of this is a reaction to American support of Israel. But that's an oversimplification: Arab anti-Americanism was strong even in "the 1950s and 1960s, well before the United States developed a special relationship with Israel." It appears that radical Islamists hate America at least as much for its "religious liberty, freedom of the press, and equality before the law" as it does for our support of human rights in Israel. In addition, they mention that while the Arab "street" is rather anti-American, that is not at all the case for the Iranian "street."
Michael Radu mentions that 10% of those who live in the United States are Latin Americans. Nevertheless, quite a few people find a way, generally fraudulent, to blame America for the poverty of many Latin Americans. In addition, most Latin Americans incorrectly feel that the United States can manipulate and control Latin America at will. Finally, the Catholic Church has played a role in all this, with Jesuits often disseminating anti-U.S. "liberation theology" material.
David Brooks has a chapter on Nicaragua. I found it interesting to see how academics who visited Nicaragua in 1987 got a very unbalanced view about the amount of support for the Sandinistas. Those who actually met a representative set of Nicaraguans came away with an extremely different point of view.
Marc Falcoff writes about Cuba. One day, the United States and Cuba will indeed have good relations. Falcoff asks if there will then be a problem caused by the very distorted view of the United States produced by the Cuban media and educational system. Walter D. Connor's chapter is about Russia, which he shows to be much more of a European nation (as opposed to an Asian nation) than I would have thought.
Roger Kimball has an excellent chapter on domestic anti-Americanism. He reminds us that just as English pacifism "inculcated an attitude that aided England's enemies," anti- Americanism "is objectively pro-terrorist." We see that if one understands why vicious people are vicious, that provides no immunity from the effects of that viciousness. And we see that anti-Americanism is almost the exact opposite of dissent. Kimball feels that American resoluteness will reduce anti-Americanism. If that is so, perhaps that means that there is something to anti-Bush feelings as part of anti-Americanism. As one who voted against Bush, I feel it is unfair to equate Bush with all of America. But I also feel that Bush has not been a particularly resolute President.
Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes discuss the Communist Left and its rejection of American society. Next is Cathy Young's chapter on feminist hostility to American society. One feminist boasted that only 8% of the world's population are white men, calling it "a very encouraging fact." She may be overlooking the fact that quite a few Women are very happily married to white men! Still, what are legitimate feminist issues? Crime, the economy, abortion, child care, the balancing of work and motherhood, and schools for children ... these ought to be part of it. How about female genital mutilation? Or other forms of severe oppression of women that we often see in Islamic tyrannies? If one disregards all these issues in an attempt to oppose America, well, one is not a feminist, as far as I am concerned. And I won't be the only one to feel that way!
Adam Garfinkle discusses domestic peace movements. While there is always legitimate domestic opposition to every American use of force, there is also some anti-American opposition, and many Americans greet this with well-deserved skepticism.
Sandra Stotsky has a fine article about the teaching of a totally bogus moral equivalence between America's behavior with that of National Socialist Germany. And the book concludes with an article by Bruce Thornton on anti-Americanism and popular culture. War is indeed gruesome, and we need to be aware of the principles for which we fight. As Thornton says, "absent that context, the miseries of war become an emotional media spectacle rather than useful information." And that can make supposedly objective media coverage into "stealth editorials" that can become an outright assault on American interests as well as on human rights.
I recommend this book.
The TRUTH about Europe vs. America.......2006-06-08
From Jeremy Rifkin's [...]
Page 3:
"The American Dream is far too centered on personal material advancement and too little concerned with the broader human welfare to be relevant in a world of increasing risk, diversity, and interdependence. It is an old dream, immersed in a frontier mentality, that has long since become passé. While the American Spirit is tiring and languishing in the past, a new European Dream is being born. It is a dream far better suited to the next stage in the human journey - one that promises to bring humanity to a global consciousness befitting an increasingly interconnected and globalizing society.
The European Dream emphasizes community relationships over individual autonomy, cultural diversity over assimilation, quality of life over the accumulation of wealth, sustainable development over unlimited material growth, deep play over unrelenting toil, universal human rights and the rights of nature over property rights, and global cooperation over the unilateral exercise of power."
Page 13 - 14:
"The American and European dreams are, at their core, about two diametrically opposed ideas of freedom and security. Americans hold a negative definition of what it means to be free and, thus, secure. For us, freedom has long been associated with autonomy. If one is autonomous, he or she is not dependent on others or vulnerable to circumstances outside of his or her control. To be autonomous, one needs to be propertied. The more wealth one amasses, the more independent one is in the world. One is free by becoming self-reliant and an island unto oneself. With wealth comes exclusivity, and with exclusivity comes security.
The new European Dream, however, is based on a different set of assumptions about what constitutes freedom and security. For Europeans, freedom is not found in autonomy but in embeddedness. To be free is to have access to a myriad of interdependent relationships with others. The more communities one has access to, the more options and choices one has for living a full and meaningful life. With relationships comes inclusivity, and with inclusivity comes security.
The American Dream puts an emphasis on economic growth, personal wealth, and independence. The new European Dream focuses more on sustainable development, quality of life, and interdependence. The American Dream pays homage to the work ethic. The European Dream is more attuned to leisure and deep play. The American Dream is inseparable from the country's religious heritage and deep spiritual faith. The European Dream is secular to the core. The American Dream is assimilationist. We associate success with shedding our former cultural ties and becoming free agents in the great American melting pot. The European Dream, by contrast, is based on preserving one's cultural identity and living in a multicultural world. The American Dream is wedded to love of country and patriotism. The European Dream is more cosmopolitan and less territorial. Americans are more willing to employ military force in the world, if necessary, to protect what we perceive to be our vital self-interests. Europeans are more reluctant to use military force and, instead, favor diplomacy, economic assistance, and aid to avert conflict and prefer peacekeeping operations to maintain order. Americans tend to think locally while European's loyalties are more divided and stretch from the local to the global. The American Dream is deeply personal and little concerned with the rest of humanity. The European Dream is more expansive and systemic, and therefore more bound to the welfare of the planet."
Page 16 - 17:
"That's why it saddens me to say that America is no longer a great country. Yes, it's still the most powerful economy in the world, with a military presence unmatched in all of history. But to be a great country, it is necessary to be a good country. It is true that people everywhere enjoy American cultural forms and consumer goods. Rap music, action movies, and other forms of entertainment, as well as our brand-name clothes, are eagerly snapped up around the world. America is even envied, but it is no longer admired as it once was. The American Dream, once so coveted, has increasingly become an object of derision. Our way of life no longer inspires; rather, it is now looked on as outmoded and, worse yet, as something to fear, or abhor."
Page 23:
"It's going to be very difficult for Americans to adjust to a borderless world of relationships and flows where everyone is increasingly connected in webs and networks, and dependent on one another for one's individual and collective well-being. What happens to the American sense of being special, of being a chosen people, in a world where exclusivity is steadily giving way to inclusivity? Does God really care less about the whole of his earthly creation than he does about the North American part? Europeans might find such a conjecture funny, but, believe me, many Americans remain wedded to the notion of our special status as God's chosen ones. If we were to give up that belief, or even entertain doubt about its veracity, our sense of confidence in ourselves and the American Dream might experience irreparable harm."
Page 31:
"I was recently teaching a class of young business leaders, half of whom were from Europe, the other half from America. The Europeans said they were perplexed that whenever they attended a business meeting where a presentation was given by an American businessperson, the Americans in attendance would shower the speaker with congratulations for doing a brilliant job even if he or she was merely delivering a rather standard talk about not very interesting things."
Page 31 - 32:
"The desire for instant gratification, when combined with a sense of over-empowerment and entitlement, can create a volatile emotional mix. The narcissistic personality type is generally less able to handle life's many frustrations, and more prone to anti-social behavior, even including using violence to get what they feel they deserve and are entitled to."
"Canadians and Americans were asked if "it is acceptable to use violence to get what you want." In 1992, 9 percent of Canadians and only 10 percent of Americans said using violence to get what you want was acceptable. (62) By 1996, however, 18 percent of Americans felt that it was all right to use violence to get what you want, while still only 9 percent of Canadians thought the same way. (63) In 2000, the gap between Canadians and Americans had widened even more. Twelve percent of Canadians thoughts violence was justified to get what they wanted, while 24 percent of Americans felt the same way. (64) That's nearly one out of four Americans believing that using violence to get what they want is acceptable. Michael Adams, who heads up the polling organization Environics, concluded that "Americans are prepared to put a lot more on the line than Canadians to achieve their version of the American Dream," including committing acts of violence, if necessary. (65)"
Footnotes:
62. Adams, Michael. Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada, and the Myth of Converging Values. Toronto: Penguin, 2003. p. 53.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
Page 51 - 52:
"Europeans like to say that "Americans live to work" while "Europeans work to live." What's the point of making money, they argue, when you have no leisure time to enjoy it? According to one study, 37 percent of Americans now work more than fifty hours a week, and 80 percent of male workers work more than forty hours a week. And the hours worked by many Americans keep going up while in Europe hours worked keep going down. No wonder 70 percent of American parents complain they lack sufficient time with their children, while 38 percent of Americans say "they always feel rushed," and 61 percent say they rarely have excess time. (52) With so little time available after work, Americans use many of their spare moments just to run errands, pay bills, and fix up the house.
The increase in work hours takes a heavy toll on American health, according to health professionals. Stress-related diseases - heart attacks, strokes, and cancer - are on the rise in America. One recent study by the journal Psychosomatic Medicine found that the more often American workers skip their vacations, the higher their health risks are. Men who took an annual vacation were 32 percent less likely to die of coronary artery disease than those who did not take vacations. (53)
The difference in how Europeans and Americans conceive a good economy is reflected in the hours worked on both sides of the Atlantic. If one measures the standards of living in terms of paychecks, American are 29 percent wealthier than their European counterparts. (54) But if one measures the good life by the amount of leisure time available, the average European enjoys four to ten weeks more of play each year. (55) The question, then, is, Does that 29 percent of additional wealth buy more joy and happiness - enough at least to justify giving up upwards of two to three months of additional leisure each year? As my wife is fond of reminding me - because I, too, am an American workaholic - "No one has ever regretted on their deathbed that they didn't spend more time at the office."
Footnotes:
52. Scheier, Lee. "Call it a Day, America." Chicago Tribune. May 5, 2002
53. Ibid.
54. "Main Economic Indicators: Purchasing Power Parities." OECD. February 2004. [...]
55. "Employment Outlook: Average Annual Hour Worked in the OECD, 1979-200." Paris: OECD, 2001.
Page 81 - 82:
"Living in a safe environment is also one of the hallmarks of a good society. We have come to believe that the more affluent a society becomes, the more peaceful it is likely to be. If GDP is the standard, then the United States ought to be one of the safest nations on Earth.
Between 1997 and 1999, the average rate of homicides per 100,000 people in the EU was 1.7. The U.S. rate of homicide was nearly four times higher, or nearly 6.26 per 100,000 people. (84) More terrifying still, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that the rates of childhood homicides, suicides, and firearm-related deaths exceed those of the other twenty-five wealthiest nations in the world, including the fourteen wealthiest European countries. The homicide rate for children in the U.S. was five times higher than for children in the other twenty-five countries combined. The suicide rate among U.S. children was two times higher than all of the suicides combined in all the other twenty-five countries measured. (85)
It's not surprising that the U.S. incarceration rate is so high compared to that of the European Union. As mentioned earlier, in chapter 2, more than two million Americans are currently in prison - that's nearly one quarter of the entire prison population in the world. (86) While EU member states average 87 prisoners per 100,000 population, the United States averages an incredible 685 prisoners per 100,000 population. (87)"
Footnotes:
84. Graff, James. "Gunning for It." Time Europe. Vol. 159. No. 19. May 13, 2002
85. "Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-related Death Among Children - 26 Industrialized Countries." Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report. Vol. 46, No. 5. February 7, 1997. P. 102.
86. Barclay, Gordon, and Cynthia Tavares. "International Comparison of Criminal Justice Statistics 2000." July 12, 2002; "Two Million Inmates and Counting." The New York Times. April 9, 2003.
87. Barclay, Gordon, and Cynthia Tavares. "International Comparisons Of Criminal Justice Statistics 2000."
Page 83 - 85:
"THE TUG BETWEEN EUROPE and America goes even deeper than questions of personal opportunity and quality of life. What really distinguishes the comings and goings in Europe and America today is that Europe is busy preparing for a new era while America is desperately trying to hold on to the old one.
What we are going to find, by retracing European history, are the roots of the American Dream that we discussed in chapter 1. Although historians rarely allude to it, the reality is that the American Dream represents the thinking of a moment of time, frozen in European history and transported whole cloth to American shores in the eighteenth century, where it continued to animate the American experience right up to the present day.
We Americans like to think of ourselves as forward-thinking, with our attention focused on the distant horizon. However, our worldview, strangely enough, is locked into a specific period of time long since passé by in European history. In short, the American Dream is a very old dream and becoming increasingly irrelevant in the new era of globalization."
Page 145:
"For the Enlightenment philosophers and the jurists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, freedom was defined in negative terms as the right to exclude others."
Page 158:
"Most of my European friends and acquaintances are quick to ridicule America's love affair with "the almighty dollar." "All you Americans think about is money" has become a standard mantra in virtually every opening discussion about the American character and the American way of life. In reality, the American condition is more complex. It's not the money per se. Rather, it's the search for personal security that comes from being propertied, the belief that our possessions will make us free. For many Europeans who have opted or less wealth and more play, the American obsession with creating propertied wealth appears more like a kind of pathology. They say that "our possessions end up possessing us.
But the point is, it was the American people that became the purest advocates of the European Enlightenment idea that equates private property with freedom."
Page 385:
"The European Dream is a beacon of light in a troubled world. It beckons us to a new age of inclusivity, diversity, quality of life, deep play, sustainability, universal human rights, the rights of nature, and peace on Earth. We Americans used to say that the American Dream is worth dying for. The new European Dream is worth living for."
An American-centric and partial book.......2006-05-12
The book is often openly biased, and it fails to confront impartially different opinions on the topics of discussion. It also suffers from a lack of cultural relativism as it takes the American-centric point of view for granted.
The volume does not offer a reflection of possible American wrong-doing, but tends to defend it. As a result, anti-Americanism is too often considered as static, unjustified and illegitimate without analysing it as a relevant critique of American foreign-policy attitudes.
The book poorly analyses the sources and reasons for anti-Americanism and its trend in relation to US foreign policy decisions. Having analysed how US actions have resulted in increased anti-Americanism, the book could have provided a stronger evaluation of American foreign policy and would eventually offer a lesson for a more multilateral, law-based, balanced and pacifist US foreign-policy strategy.
Ask, discuss before generalizing.......2005-12-04
Arabs and Muslims do NOT hate America. They are angry, indeed indignant, about U.S. policies in their region, and the ways the U.S. uses its power to dominate, invade, impose sanctions, support corrupt regimes, exploit oil resources. These are, however, POLITICAL issues. If they actually hated America, the situation would be hopeless. But they love American values, freedom, democracy (look at polls in Arab countries) and most would like to immigrate and raise their children here. This means that their own children will be Americans.
In the Middle East, Arabs/Muslims are very welcoming and helpful to American residents, who are not held accountable for the actions of their government (if this is a surprise, ask anyone who has lived in the Arab World). This is contrary to the media image held by people who have not been there (violence, hatred). Extremists, who hate the entire West, are perhaps one percent. Many people sympathize with resentments against America's political policies, but they do not agree with violence (many Americans sympathize with anti-abortion groups but do not condone blowing up clinics, and in the name of Christianity to boot). Actual Islamic extremists are much like our White Aryans or neo-Nazis who oppose all who are not like them.
Here's a simple way to investigate this: ASK Arabs and Muslims in your community (they live in every community and blend in just fine) if they hate America. Or if they are angry at America, ask why. Commentators are always confident that they can explain how a group of people think (hatred of our religion, wealth, freedom, hatred going back centuries) or perhaps they need more information about us, or they're just crazy/evil/inscrutable. Disputes between Islam and the West during the Crusader era, or the Islamic conquest era, etc., have no relevance in modern people's thinking (do the Crusades shape our thinking today?).
I am an American who knows Arabic and hears, and/or overhears discussions going on around me. I travel widely in the Arab World. I am just reporting on what I have heard first-hand. Until our government realizes that the problem is political, we cannot begin to address responses to "anti-Americanism."
Ugh..........2005-08-29
I couldn't even get past the introduction for this book. The first part of the intro discusses Anti-Americanism abroad, and the second part proceeds to discuss domestic sentiments. "Discuss" probably isn't the best word describe the junk printed in this book. Hollander's "discussion" of domestic anti-Americanism consists of simply quoting various people and labeling them as anti-American. Because these people disagreed with American policies and actions, they were smeared. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common response from conservatives--if anyone disagrees with policies, they are smeared and labeled as traitors or anti-Americans(see the reviewer below, who was promptly labeled as a "liberal blowhard" by another reviewer). In actuality, it is extremely American to question the government, to disagree with it, to protest. As Americans, we have a responsibility to question our leaders, not blindly follow them. I was hoping that this book would provide an objective, educational view on the issue of anti-Americanism. However, the introduction proved to be quite slanted, and I don't think that any of the material in the rest of the book would provide me with the objectivity I was looking for. Paul Hollander had and opportunity to put together a book that would educate the public, whether they were red or blue, and unfortunately, he botched it. I would not recommend this book to anyone.
Book Description
A masterly and caustic examination of America's role in fostering anti-Americanism over fifty years, by a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and award-winning writer
In 1945 the U.S. was the founding impulse behind the cornerstones of the International Community: the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and most of all the United Nations. Untainted by colonialism or fascism, heroic in warfare and idealistic at home, the U.S. presented itself as a paragon to inspire a less noble and divided world. Sixty years later, that perception had been almost completely reversed.
America had, in fact, quietly sowed the seeds of its own decline in the eyes of the world in its own back yard. Anti-Americanism, now a global phenomenon, was road tested in South America when most of the rest of the world was too distracted to notice or care. There, under the guise of anti-communism, we sponsored dictatorships, turned a blind eye to killing squads and tolerated the subversion of democracy. Almost nobody knew, so it didn't matter, right?
Wrong. On two counts. First, South America remembered. And second, encouraged by our success, we convinced ourselves that pre-emptive Americanism was a policy that could be shipped worldwide. This proved to be a big misjudgment. The world noticed and, helped by better scrutiny and faster technology, anti-Americanism flourished among America's closest allies beyond the Americas in a way and to a depth not seen before. As this reaches a crucial tipping point, Julia Sweig offers a brilliant and blistering history of what went wrong, and a feisty and compelling prescription for how to sort it out.
Customer Reviews:
No mention made of Khadafi quitting his nuke bomb project due to Dubya's taking down Saddam!.......2006-05-13
I wonder why author Sweig in all her hard research has neglected to mention this fact. Could it be that Khadafi (Quadafi) quitting the nuclear bomb game is support that the US was good in taking Iraq over.
Fidel Castro gets a pretty good review by this author too ignoring what a kangaroo court murderer he was once he took Cuba over. The author talks about the US taking over Cuba in 1898 ignoring things like how the USA eradicated some diseases and set up a good school system down there too. This author seems also strangely convinced that giving away the US owned-and-deserved Panama Canal to the Panamanians was a good thing. Back to Iraq the author is quick to quote how many Kurds were killed by Turkey (well over 30,000) but not how many ultra-creep Saddam bumped off (over 200,000!).
Of all the recent critiques of U.S. foreign policy, this is the most constructive and cutting-edge.......2006-04-23
Moderates and conservatives skeptical of the wartime proliferation of anti-U.S. treatises will find themselves falling unexpectedly in love with Julia Sweig's brilliant and provocative work, "Friendly Fire." This is the best nonfiction book I've read this year.
Though the author is probably somewhere on the center-left, "Friendly Fire" is no knee-jerk, know-nothing, America-bashing critique. Sweig provides a trenchant and thoughtful analysis of other nations' growing antipathy to American foreign policy, completely without any ax to grind.
Sweig's region-by-region analysis is practically a blueprint for how to get American foreign policy back on track while at the same time, keeping American interests in mind.
Sweig offers the kind of proscriptive analysis too seldom found in the cheap, Michael Moore-style lefty critiques. She not only identifies the problems in U.S. foreign policy, she also offers solutions, including many that defy easy ideological categorization.
As brilliant as this book is, Sweig's writing style is conversational and breezy - a sheer delight. "Friendly Fire" combines the intellectual heft of a Pulitzer Prize-winner with the easy-to-read narrative of a book that can remain atop the best seller list for a year.
I loved this book.
Tedious.......2006-04-18
Sweig writes: "In 1945 the U.S. was the founding impulse behind the cornerstones of the international community - the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. We were untainted by colonialism (Philippine Islands?) and heroic and war - a paragon to inspire those less noble. Sixty years later that perception has almost been reversed."
Then Sweig takes us through some of U.S. actions since 1900 - beginning with 28 interventions in Central America between 1900 and 1921, followed by Guatemala in '54 (200,000 killed in the next 30 years), our Iran-Contra involvement in Nicaragua, invasions of Grenada and Panama, and our 60-year increasing enmity against Cuba, including the Bay of Pigs fiasco and near-doomsday events of 1962.
Sweig's objective, with this introduction, is to explain why Latin America got a head-start in anti-Americanism (demonstrated by the rock-throwing at V.P. Nixon's car during a tour in 1950). All well and good, it you like beating an issue to death by focusing on the 80% of activities causing 20% of the problem.
The topic is much more easily handled if one simply begins with American actions after 9/11, when we enjoyed very high ratings and sympathy. Bush's "bring it on" rhetoric, our facts-be-damned invasion of Iraq, detainee and prison scandals quickly combined with resentment over our Kyoto rhetoric, casting aside the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, repeal of support of HIV/AIDS initiatives that included family planning and abortion, supporting a coup against President Chavez (80% support) in Venezuela, derision of Iraq invasion opponents and the U.N. in general, and bungling of the Iraq occupation to create a dramatic fall-off in international support. Then came the ineptness exposed by Katrina, growing federal and trade deficits, and increasing income/wealth inequality within the U.S. All easily recalled, and coverable in a few pages.
Sweig's Recommendations? Hardly imaginative - some dramatic policy reversals, such as endorsing Kyoto, adopting a mannered posture, giving Guantanamo back to Cuba.
Save yourself a headache - just read my review!
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
What's So Great about America
America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
The End of Racism
Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion
