blog (coffee shop)
by The way that the rest of the world views Americans has been debated on several of our blogs. The most supported view seems to be that we have always been hated and no amount of generosity in sending aid to those who need it, or expensive forces to restore law and order in failed states, seems to be changing that.
Is this true? If so, must we resign ourselves to being pariahs, or is there something we can do about it? You may disagree violently with what I say here but perception is reality. Most of us have seen the world as tourists, businessmen or on military service and have personally felt the hostile reactions of the locals. So the view that they have never liked us is understandable. This has been termed the Ugly American phenomenon, which as real as it is unfair to most of us.
Perhaps we need to see this through foreign eyes and on several levels. As tourists we tend to be relatively rich, ignorant of local history and culture, critical of facilities and services, fat, loud, racist and monolingual. Yes, this is a gross generalization and will therefore be wrong in many particular cases, but I am looking for general explanations here.
I would agree that there has been an element of envy in the way many foreigners have seen us in the past, but I would also contend that it is probably diminishing now. As businessmen we are aggressively competitive, insensitive of national pride, and keen to force our models on them (think fast food, and television). As military servicemen we are better paid than theirs, have better uniforms, more medals, bigger weapons, more home comforts, and are convinced that we are stronger and better soldiers. If our country was flooded with people from a particular country who (generally) behaved like this, then our reaction would be much the same.
Since the 1960s there has been another dimension to American phobias. Our government has taken the American people into several wars that were widely perceived to be unjust around the world. Anti war movements, the media and Hollywood have reinforced this unpleasant view of America as nation rather than as a people. Recently the present administration has heaped up numerous new reasons to detest us: WMD, rendition, Gitmo, Kyoto, and so on gave the impression that we were losing track of our once proud sense of liberty and justice. (Please, whether or not these perceptions are fair is not really the issue unless the unfairness can be demonstrated to the world.)
A counter view has been expressed in the blogs (by me), that we did once have a reserve of good will capital. Immediately after WWII the Ugly American was also seen to be generous, brave and good humored. During the 1950s we were regarded as modern, prosperous, good at business and relatively well educated. I am optimistic enough to believe that with some good leadership America could regain the lost reputation. I feel this way because I know that deep down Americans are good folks (generally) with high moral values and goodwill to all. I also think it is important to correct the wrong impression that they have of us. Of course this subject is about (unsubstantiated) opinions and it has therefore been necessary to give some of these in my statements and in the references.
Does it matter what the world thinks of Americans? Please consider trade, influence in multilateral forums, national and world security, and our own self respect. And please try to avoid reacting to this in the way that an Ugly American might.
Add a Comment (13)
Email This
Message Author
Having traveled extensively and made friends in a lot of different countries, I will tell you that the perception of the ugly American exists, but is easy to shatter with just a tiny little bit of language knowledge (leisure travel) or basic respect for human dignity (military travel).
This comment is about the perception being pretty darn irrelevant because in all the places that I've been, even those that really really didn't like us, the ubiquitous person that wants to move to New York/LA/Chicago/Miami will make pleasant conversation...
Yes. If it can be fixed so easily at the level of the individual it is not a problem If enough of us do it. Good, I agree. What about at the national level?
What about at the national level?
Oh that's easy enough: completely disavow all support for Israel, ship arms to Palestine, abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, unilaterally disarm all nuclear weapons and the bulk of our conventional weapons, dismantle all plans for a ballistic missle defense program, ratify the Kyoto protocols so that our GDP will fall by 6% to stave off a global temp increase so small you can't even measure it on a thermometer for 40 years, ramp up foreign aid, tax our citizens on behalf of the UN, abolish the 2nd Amendment, open our borders, outlaw the exporting of our popular culture via satellites, movies, and McDonalds so as to not force our culture on the rest of the world, and let the UN select our presidents. Instead of hating us, the rest of the world will open their arms and be ready to loathe us, or even go as far as strongly dislike us.
Thanks Dilly, I was sure I could rely on you for the Ugly American reaction, but you had me worried for a while there by leaving it for a few days. Nevertheless, you eventually showed up true to form. Thanks. You have nicely illustrated the kind of negative attitude to the world that we must strive to avoid in our leadership.
The USA has to learn to live in the world community, and by the same rules. The fact that we have the biggest GDP and military forces does not make us so special that we should do whatever we think is best for us and the rest of the world can like it or lump it.
Some of your examples are so wide of the mark. The world would not import our popular culture if they didn't like it, so that's fine. It is just a shame that our TV programs are so banal and make us look like wealthy decadent fools. Our fast food has about the same amount of nutrition as our TV. They may be sad for us for the effect of our gun laws on our society, but I don't think they really care about crime in the USA: other than to downgrade our credibility on the subject when we preach to them about crime and corruption in their country.
True, support for Israel is difficult to achieve through the UN because there is not much respect for Israel there. However if we were able to use our improved credibility and influence to achieve such support through the multilateral forums, it would be more likely to be lasting. Such support would not of course be as blind to the faults of Israel as the right wing in the USA. Which is good.
Your UN paranoia is highly relevant to what is wrong in our current stance. The UN does not select the presidents of any other countries, or ramp up their taxes and would never do so for us. You must know that, but I guess you were looking for something emotive - even if it makes you appear ignorant. The Bush administration undermined many of Koffee Anan's measures to reform the UN, so the USA has lost credibility in its complaints about UN inefficiency.
In spite of all that, I think there is a good point trying to escape from your puce prose. Would the USA lose a significant amount of its independence, national security, or wealth by playing a more popular role on the world stage?
I don't know. Perhaps! Let's hear the arguments in a calm rational manner.
That which is popular is not always right. Matter of fact, that which is popular often has a tendency to be wrong. Plenty, even most, Americans out there can't appreciate the complexity of our foreign policy, so it is not far fetched to believe that the world can't either. I suppose it comes down to that which is most important to you. A sweet little world that is harmonious on the surface, but maintains the evil undercurrents of tyrrants and warlords, or a world where the "big bad Americans" keep butting into everyone's business and bring the badness into the spotlights. I prefer the latter, as it keeps me and mine (the USA and my family, friends, and girls I sleep with) safe.
The fact that naive people in Europe don't understand my stance on security and foreign policy doesn't mean that I can't be friendly when I visit their country.
The fact that naive people in Europe don't understand my stance on security and foreign policy doesn't mean that I can't be friendly when I visit their country.
Well put. These are my sentiments as well.
That which is popular is not always right. Matter of fact, that which is popular often has a tendency to be wrong.
I prefer the latter, as it keeps me and mine (the USA and my family, friends, and girls I sleep with) safe.
Good points, and probably representative of the feelings of many Americans. I think you are saying that our Government's aim should be to do right for us and not to be overly concerned with being popular. Agreed.
I wish I could also share your feeling that our foreign policy makes us safer. For me the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. 911 was more scary for us than for Europeans, but our involvement in wars that don't otherwise affect us actually makes us less safe. Alienation of potential allies is usually unwise unledd there is a worthwhile return because we might need them one day.
The War on Terrorism has made terrorism worse. Although there was no evidence that Iraq was connected with Al Qaeda before we invaded, perhaps the President truly believed that Saddam's WMDs did threaten us back then, so we had to invade. I think that there is validity in that view, but with 20/20 hindsight we now know it was wrong and Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the USA then. I accept that it is connected now. Although there are these mitigating circumstances, starting that war was still a very bad move.
The cost of the war in Iraq has exacerbated the securities financial crisis and taken many of us ordinary Americans to the brink of personal financial ruin. That may mean fewer girls around for us to sleep with, if we can still sleep.
I agree with you to the extent that our aim should not be to be popular but to to do right by the world community according to our core values, as well as taking care of our own needs at the same time, and to be consistent about it. Every country puts its own interest first in its foreign policy, but most try to hide this in the interest of maintaining leverage in diplomacy. It is a devious business: has always been so, and will continue to be. I do not think that we are doing that very well. If we did it better our popularity might improve as a by product.
I also agree with you that our foreign policy is probably too complex for most Americans and Europeans to understand. Is blind faith in our government the appropriate response to that? We can expect that from many loyal Americans but not from Europeans.
I guess that it really doesn't matter for people who feel that our present style of international relations makes them safer. That would be enough to justify it if only it were true.
Acha! I've been gone from the O-nerd for a while, but remember Occams position on the war now. I will refer you to STRATFOR's assessment on the war in Iraq:
Our view was that the Bush administration would go to war in Iraq not because it saw it as a great idea, but because its options were to go on the defensive against al Qaeda and wait for the next attack or take the best of a bad lot of offensive actions (www.stratfor.com/analysis/iraq_terrorism_and_geopolitics). The second option consisted of trying to create what we called the "coalition of the coerced," Islamic countries prepared to cooperate in the covert war against al Qaeda. Fighting in Afghanistan was merely a holding action that alone would solve nothing. So lacking good options, the administration chose the best of a bad lot.
STRATFOR's assessment is accurate and well reasoned. We didn't have much of a choice, as the only effective way to fight is offensively - reference the Maginot Line.
I still hold that the war in Iraq has not had a significant impact on our economy and that the current economic decline is the result of dishonest bankers and crooked businessmen. Market watches that I read predict that we have reached the bottom and that the summer may well prove to be better. Time will tell.
The sad truth is that international political decisions will often not present you with any good choices, but instead will only leave you with less bad options.
Romanizzo
Thanks. Very interesting and food for thought. I usually have respect for STRATFOR analysis. I have to say though that this one does smack a bit of: "Hell, after 911 we have to make war on someone so lets pick the worst Arab bastard and attack him."
The second option consisted of trying to create what we called the "coalition of the coerced," Islamic countries prepared to cooperate in the covert war against al Qaeda.
You would have to admit that if that was the objective then the mission has been an abject failure.
It is interesting to see what STRATFOR is saying about the war now.The invasion of Iraq probably was a mistake, and certainly its execution was disastrous.
also: The motivation for the war, as we wrote, had to do with forcing Saudi Arabia to become more cooperative in the fight against al Qaeda by demonstrating that the United States actually was prepared to go to extreme measures. The United States invaded to change the psychology of the region, which had a low regard for American power. It also invaded to occupy the most strategic country in the Middle East, one that bordered seven other key countries.
The finance world is now trying to pin the blame for the debt crisis on the war. The case is made ins this article in business spectator. So I am not a lone voice on that.
I concede that my position now reeks of being wise after the event, but I truly did believe that the Iraq invasion was a mistake at the time.
Perhaps it was simply an honest mistake by a naive new President keen to 'bring the perpetrators of 911 to justice' and not at all influenced by the oil lobby. Even if we can swallow that one whole, is such a mistake tolerable given the huge intelligence resources available to guide the Chief in such decisions? What should he do when he realises that it was a mistake?
I guess it is all just history now and there will continue to be diverse opinions on the invasion of Iraq.
RSS
Question? by AnonBCA :: NR6 :: on 25 March 2008
Great article BTW...
I am optimistic enough to believe that with some good leadership America could regain the lost reputation.
What is the face of this "good leadership" what attributes has leadership lacked the past that may have contributed to our failing image?
Does it matter what the world thinks of Americans?
I think many people look at America as more of a marketplace, and less of a culture. That is what makes America so unique...you have a blend of people that not only have a financial investment in the US, but are embracing its evolving and dynamic culture. You also have those people that reject that culture and embrace the capitalism and free-enterprise.
I think that the biggest challenge that the nation faces is establishing a clear moral code...a code that is not based on religiosity, (or atheism for that matter) but rather, a balance of rationale and compassion for all manner of human being. What does it take to develop a system such as that?
RE: Question? by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 25 March 2008
a code that is not based on religiosity, (or atheism for that matter) but rather, a balance of rationale and compassion for all manner of human being
Perhaps you didn't mean this ... or maybe you did ... but (atheism != anarchy) AND (atheism != indifference) evaluates to true.
RE: Question? by scottb :: NR7 :: on 01 April 2008
Not sure what you're trying to say with that expression, but you probably didn't say what you meant.
(a != n) AND (a != i) means that both terms are true, and unbound variables are conventionally treated as universally quantified, so you're saying that no atheists are anarchists and no atheists are indifferent. It'd be nice if that were true (it'd be nice if it were true of any group), but it's unrealistic.
Few people who take a strong atheist stance seem to be indifferent, but there are quite a few who have anarchist leanings. For a proper notion of "anarchist", anyway.
RE: Question? by Occams :: NR6 :: on 26 March 2008
What is the face of this "good leadership
I don't know. I guess it is easier to see how poor leadership can cause damage to our reputation rather than how good leadership can enhance it.
(In the following all references to the masculine refer also to the feminine.)
I am hoping, perhaps forlornly, that we might get a leader (or a whole bunch of them) one day who exemplifies all that is good about Americans, and that as he strides the world stage the people of other countries would see him as a model of how we are, or would at least like to be. I think this man would need to be highly charismatic, intelligent, educated, worldly, sophisticated, humorous, sexy, and charming - not much chance of someone like that making it through our Presidential elections. This is getting depressing!
I don't think our leader needs to be a deeply religious person but he must embody the Christian values that are still dominant in the USA, while at the same time respecting the religions of other citizens and countries. The leader must understand the history and politics of Islam in particular and be able to make up his own mind about what is right there, and be able to articulate it to Americans and the world. We need an honest broker who has a sense of humour and can defuse tense moments with some light relief.
Our national chief executive will not have much international cred unless he can manage our finances properly. Indeed, he must be able to steer us out of the financial mess we are in now. Great personal wealth should not be a requirement, but it is now for the President and we need to do something about that.
I think we need to be seen to have turned the page on a difficult era that we handled with a firmness that we don't need to apologise for, but do not wish to maintain any longer than is absolutely necessary. As victims of the war on terror we gained enormous support immediately after 911 but in my opinion we squandered that capital by applying it to Iraq for a poor return - for us at least because I am not discounting its value to the good Iraquis.
Something like this kind of leadership change has happened in Australia where a tired, backward looking divisive leader (John Howard) was replaced last November by a new face (Kevin Rudd) who immediately changed the direction of many former government policies (notably on industrial relations aboriginies and environment) with the intention of restoring fairness, equity and responsibility. Krud, as the Aussies affectionately call him, has seen his popularity sky rocket and many Australians who were ashamed for the previous small minded policies on immigration, the native people, and Kyoto are now proud again.
America has been extremely generous with its tax-payer dollars in providing assistance to other countries, but this does not seem to be enough to improve our image. In fact, some claim that it is partly the cause of the problem. I don't see how that could be true, but perhaps it indicates that we need to sell this aid better - I mean have coordinated PR but be modest about it and try not to use it to serve our own interests. Charity is a delicate matter.
Personally, I think it would help if the USA participated more cooperatively and enthusiastically in the UN and all its organisations instead of being so judgemental. We have to ensure that its funds are well managed, but I suspect that can be assisted by greater participation in the financial management councils. It amazes me how often the USA stands against the world on multilateral agreements. Our case is always so different from the rest of the world that we can't let the same rules apply to us. The Kyoto agreement was not a UN deal, but it illustrates the point. We must keep better control over the industry expert advisors in our delegations to these multilateral meetings. Too often they lobby selfishly in their own interests and against ours and the world's.
The ugly American tourist is changing and hopefully will fade away as time goes on. We could facilitate this with a fun education program in schools about how to behave in another country. As European and Asian standards of living improve they are getting their quota of fat, loud, angry tourists as well.
I don't really think our soldiers have much to apologise for. If they look smarter and have more self confidence, then that is how it should be. They are already given some training in how not to upset the locals. Perhaps that could be refined a little.
I think it is doable and worth doing, but it won't be easy.