Bravo.

[katster]

"So, in short, we Americans are not against criticism of our government, but we are against the idea that the American Government and the American People are the same thing that we take offense. After all, saying that *all* Americans are willing to exploit whole countries just to save a buck is no better than saying that *all* Muslims are crazy fanatics that want to crash airplanes into buildings. "
--mythr, "Re: Think Again", comment to article "Review: Black Hawk Down", on slashdot.org, Sunday 1/20/02.

This is something I've been pondering how to express for a while, and then to have somebody come along and basically say it for me...

Not that it matters though, because the cynics will tear me a new one. :P

Comments

[usekh.livejournal.com]

I agree, I certainly dislike what America has done, and continues to do around the world and within it's own borders.

But I have many american friends :)

However a lot of them tend to presume that when I say 'America did this' I am somehow including them as part of that :P

[katster.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying my country or my government is entirely innocent. My government has done a lot of despicable things. But I'm tired of people always assuming because of what Bush the Idiot and Company has done that it is my fault as an American. And that's what I'm upset about.

The American government is not the American people is not American ideals.

That's all.

Yeah. There's no easy way to make the distinction, unfortunatly. Which is why it's bothersome when folks don't even try. :P

No offense to you or anything.

-kat

Re:

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Where do you draw the line however? when I say American's support the war on terror and the facist methods they are going about it...I am accurate in that polls show the majority do

However a lot don't..

Ultimately when I at least say 'American did this' I mean the american government did that, the same one that was voted into office by the american people(although a minority of them in this case :)

But I am not saying every american I know is responsible/supports it :)

To me American history is full of utterly barbaric, reprohensible actions..however I am not saying y'all are to blame for them :)

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

To me American history is full of utterly barbaric, reprohensible actions..

Most countries' histories are when you look at it.

Canada's got a long history of assorted atrocities. Multiple events that, had they happened more recently, would have gotten governments nailed on crimes-against-humanity charges.

On the other hand, we've molded our image into a country known primarily for stepping between two armies' trenches and quietly coaxing them back home.

Even bad history can work out when combined with good conscience.

Besides, things aren't and shouldn't be as polarized as people are making them. I do support the war in Afghanistan. That doesn't, however, make me one of the slavering militants people assume everyone who supports it must be. Though I believe it was necessary I've despised the way it was handled from October 7 onward..

Re:

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Certainly, Australia has done some awfull things as well.

Problem is America's tend to be a lot more recent, right up until this very day really(I mean America's government BTW :)

As for action in Afghanistan, I too agree something had to be done. However the problem their was largely of the worlds own making ;/

[valliegirl.livejournal.com]

I love it when people articulate things I was thinking.

and they always put it ten times better than I ever could. ^_^

[damienroc.livejournal.com]

Eh... MOST countries atrocities (if you can call them that) have extended up to the present day. The biggest difference (and something that has been pretty much constant since Vietnam) is that because the US is a) the biggest and the strongest and b) rather open about, well, everything that many people tend to magnify both the extent of American oversights and to generalize about where they come from.

Not to say that many American actions are defendable, they probably aren't, but when people are deliberately picking at the faults, while ignoring both the great things that America and Americans have done while at the same time ignoring any bad things their own country and countrymen may have done, it tends to come across as hypocritical nitpicking.

What I've often noticed is that EVERYONE feels that they can criticize America, but only people from other countries can criticize their own country. It's slightly akin to, say, the debate about nigger being a bad word when spoken by one race, but okay by another.

Hmm... I'm getting off on a tangent with no forseeable conclusion. Sorry. ^_^;;

Re:

[usekh.livejournal.com]

I dunno many countries who in the last 30 years have sponsored coups in demoractic countries to replace them with monarchies, or who have trained terrorists

[tanesmuti.livejournal.com]

What I've often noticed is that EVERYONE feels that they can criticize America, but only people from other countries can criticize their own country. It's slightly akin to, say, the debate about nigger being a bad word when spoken by one race, but okay by another.

oh, i see this all the time, both examples, and they're both equally fucked and annoying, to say the least.

[damienroc.livejournal.com]

Uh... define terrorist? It's a pretty ambiguous and subjective label, and depends on your POV. One man's terrorist can be a another's revolutionary. To pick a couple examples, you could see both the American and French Revolutions as being either massive terrorist actions or revolutions of free peoples.

Hrm... difficult to respond, otherwise, becuase you haven't provided examples. While salient criticism of any governmental body is good, generalizations don't really advance much.

Re:

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Iran, removing the socialist elected government in a coup and replacing it with the Shah..one of the more corrupt monachies in recent memory.


Well I would say Osama bin laden qualifies as a terrorist..and he was trained by the CIA.

[fearghaill.livejournal.com]

Seek and ye shall find, oh cynical one.

Seriously, whether you're looking for something bad or something good, chances are you're going to find it, regardless of subject. If you wanted to say something good about the American Government, I am certain you could find something. People rarely look for the good side of the coin when it comes to the U.S., however, and I largely attribute this to jealousy. They are on top, the most powerful nation in the world, and everybody wants to bring them back down. Here in Canada, we usually do this by attacking thier intelligence, abroad, its thier morals that are usually attacked.

In truth, I don't think the U.S. is all that much smarter or stupider than any other nation, more evil or benevolent. Yes, they have done things that no other nation has done, but is that because the other nations chose not to? Or do they just lack the U.S.'s capability? Every nation's history has dark periods where they did things that are considered amoral on some level. Even the Catholic Church has done some unthinkable acts in its past. It may be argued that the U.S.'s transgressions are more recent, and therefore more relevant, but it must also be considered that as a nation they are considerably younger, rising to become a world power in less time than any other nation in history. In the immportal words of Spiderman "With great power comes great responsibility". I see the United States as a teenager with superhuman powers. They are trying to do the right thing as best they can, but heven't yet learned the best way to do it. Often clumsy, sometimes misguided, but almost always well meaning.

Tomayto, tomahto?

[puppeteer.livejournal.com]

My first impulse is to say that a terrorist is merely an _unsuccessful_ revolutionary. Once one achieves their goal, they're tagged as a hero, freedom-fighter, or whatever.

Think of it this way, though. There is definitely a distinct difference between a person (or entity, group, whatever) that rebels against the standing government or armed force. If you've got a group say, attacking Imperial Stormtroopers and soldiers of the Empire exclusively, i'd label them "noble revolutionaries" or "rebels," if you will.

However, say those "rebels" start attacking (or completely destroy) an innocent peace-loving race living on a planet called Alderaan? Their main goal in this is simply to "send a message" and essentially try to blackmail the powers-that-be into giving them their demands. That would definitely be classified as terrorism to me, and I would label them "terrorists."

I'd say it's a pretty clear difference. Revolutionaries generally fight the oppressive power head-on. Terrorists attempt to achieve their goals by steering public opinion through fear and well, terror.

This is why, in my opinion, terrorism has never, ever, ever, succeeded in achieving any goals desired by those who use it as a strategy. The logic just isn't there. How the hell is a small minority supposed to have the majority relate and sympathize for it when the small minority is threatening the very group that it needs to convince?

Anyway, I know this was pretty garbled, but those're my thoughts this morning.

Re: Tomayto, tomahto?

[damienroc.livejournal.com]

I don't have a full response to this, but the Chinese Boxer Revolution comes to mind as one that was labeled "revolution" and that was unsuccessful (spectacularly so.)