Understanding Anti-Americanism: Its Origins and Impact at Home and Abroad

Rating:
Summary: Don't Be a Sepulveda. Don't be an Apologist for Evil.
Review: Don't be an Apologist for Evil.
Although well written, this book does not deserve to be read. The arguments expressed in this book are part of an effort by the neo-conservative right in the USA to bring some sort of intellectual support for their fascist policy. The editor is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute which is a premier conservative think tank. Understand first that this think tank belongs to a family of other millionaire endowments to fund a new era of conservatism, which we are now experiencing. It was just a matter of time for a book like this to make its appearance since these pseudo-scholars, apologists of the current power structure, have been attacking each form of challenge to the types of regimes embodied by the Bush administration. This new one, Anti-Americanism abroad, has been now categorized as a cultural development outside of our borders that can be summarized in these words "pathological envy towards USA success." While reading this book I could not stay calm and peaceful. The way it diminish the suffering and anger of those at the other end of capitalism and Americanism was simply pathetic.

To come up with intellectual arguments for oppression is nothing new. In the 16th Century one of the leading intellectuals of Europe came with the strongest logical defense for the conquest of the natives in the Americas. Juan Ginés de Sepulveda, an Aristotle scholar, presented very persuasive arguments to support the way the Europeans were treating the American natives, while on the other side of the argument was Bartolome de las Casas, protecting not the rights of the rich and greedy, but defending the rights of the natives. Las Casas had lived with the natives, have seen the injustices that the Europeans had done to them, and had changed his own ways to become a defender of the underdog. Sepulveda had never crossed the Atlantic and did not care for the wellbeing of non-Europeans that he believed to be inferior. Sepulveda won the majority of the opinions in Europe; no wonder, because it defended their status quo. Yet, today he is remembered as the pig that used scholarship to defend evil.

Today Paul Hollander stands in the same tradition as Sepulveda. He has not lived with the poor in the poor countries. He had never had trash as his regular diet. He has never know what is to be uprooted, taken up to the maquiladoras, raped by the managers paid by international corporations who make the cheap TVs we enjoy in the US, and been stuck FOREVER in such a condition of despair with no way out. He has never tried to lead a nation out of the status of "under-developed," using the neo-liberal policies stipulated by the USA. By the way, no poor country has ever been able to come up from such a status using these neo-liberal policies.

It is very easy for us living in the richest nations of the world to create all kinds of arguments as to why other people are mad at us. We can use parts of anthropological researches and paradigms (like they do in this book), making sure that those elements of compassion now present in most anthropological works are out, and create the most logical and convincing arguments as to why the underdog is mad! Look at these arguments: "They are mad because they have become used to complain to the point that it is already part of their culture and way of living and thinking." "Complaining against the USA help them forget about their problem, so it is a cheap way to blame the other instead of finding a way out on their own."

If you care for the wellbeing of this world, don't read this book if you don't want to be mad too. If you want to understand the arguments of the neo-conservative right in order to counter them and know what the majority of the blind voters in the US are thinking, then read it, but do it with some sort of escape-valve so you can survive and not die of a heart attack. If you are in doubt, and really want to understand what those who are complaining about USA policy abroad, look for authors like Juyan Zhang from the Washington Observer weekly, and authors with a deep understanding of the world like Rosemary Foot, S. Neil MacFarlane, Michael Mastanduno, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri.

Avoid triumphalist historians and scholars who write the type of history and political books that make the comfortable feel more relaxed and justified. Think seriously and be brave to look at the real world behind the curtain-the world the matrix does not want you to see. Just then you would be compelled to take steps to change that world. On the meantime, you will seat down in your comfy chair pitying those less fortunate than you who live outside of our borders, but thinking that after all they deserve their condition. [...]

Rating:
Summary: Treating the Virus
Review: In distinguishing between rational and irrational criticisms of America, Paul Hollander introduces a group of essays which aspire to disinterested scholarship rather than partisan cheerleading. Hollander writes that his status as outsider (he is a native of Hungary) allows him to understand American flaws without falling into the trap of hysterical anti-Americanism.

"The new virulence" is largely due to the actions of Muslim radicals on September 11, opening everyone's eyes to the amount of anti-American hatred which exists abroad and at home. Part I uncovers the history of anti-Americanism in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Russia, while Part II examines its influence at home in the Communist Left, feminism, peace movements, education, and in popular culture. Hollander discovers four sources of anti-Americanism in these essays: 1) the need for a scapegoat; 2) the existence of the U.S. as the sole superpower; 3) the identification of the U.S. with modernity; and 4) errors of foreign policy.

The scholars here, not surprisingly, take a historical and philosophical approach. To the degree that ideas influence behavior, their explanations are informative. I often find, however, that the simpler and more precise explanation is psychological: unhappy people project their negative feelings onto politics. The intensity of their emotion is proportional to their investment in being right, i.e. in holding a set of opinions whose alteration or rejection feels like the end of the world. Jihad means both "fighting" and "struggle." Mein Kampf translates to "My Struggle." Both examples suggest external manifestations of internal debate. Along these lines I found the essays by Roger Kimball and Bruce Thornton most instructive: anti-Americanism prefers attitude over argument, emotion over analysis, and pathology over policy.

In the 1970s, William F. Buckley was asked in an interview what he thought was the biggest threat to America. Instead of giving a predictable answer (communism, abortion, inflation) Buckley responded "self-doubt." This surprising diagnosis came back to me in the years following September 11 when I discovered not only widespread denial, as a natural buffer against the horror, but a persistent virus of self-doubt, fear and loathing at home. Where Americans banded together to fight the Second World War, today they have degenerated into a congeries of guilty consciences who feel that even during wartime the U.S. is not worth defending, physically or intellectually.

The outrageous claims of our enemies yield easily under the pressure of careful analysis. Exaggeration is one clue to their faulty thinking. I have noticed, for example, that what is often blamed on America, such as the disruptions caused by markets, are symptoms of modern, industrial societies (of which America is the biggest and most prosperous and therefore the easiest to blame). Hollander argues along similar lines in his perceptive introduction. Other critics take a partial or single-minded view: We are blamed for the invention of fast food but given no credit for contributions in literature and the arts, such as the Hudson River School or the invention of jazz.

I am convinced that September 11 shook out many of our assumptions like an old rug. It was a moment of clarity that forced us to choose sides. Even after all the introspection that comes after loss, and the necessary pruning of our ideas, it ought to be clear that America has been a remarkable force for good in the world.

Rating:
Summary: Don't worry about leftist blowhard reviewer (LBHR) below
Review: This is an excellent book. However, unlike the suggested censorship of the LBHR, you must decide for yourself whether to read it or not.