Subject:
|
Re: Ok, why such anti-American sentiment? (Was Re: the metric system)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 17:04:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
326 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> I'd rather not, since my knowledge of history is fairly weak. I would say
> that American war-time intervention in Europe was more in the US national
> interest than because of any moral sensibility.
Ok, this is an honest question, although somewhat rhetorical, but I mean no
affront: Why, then, did Australia fight in the World Wars and in Vietnam with
America? I understand the historical relationship between the UK and Australia,
and yes, I'm glad that Australia made a sacrifice with the Allies...but, was it
a sacrifice made purely of self-defense, purely of moral sensibilities? Was
there a fear that if Europe should fall, then Australia's economy would be dealt
a terrible blow (as probably it would have)? In WWII, was there fear that Japan
would invade Australia? It seems that your Pacific front was a matter of self-
defense, but what of your European front? Again, what of Vietnam? Did an
Australian Red Scare lead to fear of an expanding Asian communist empire? Did
Australia's national interests play a part in conflicts even when your territory
was not immediately endangered?
It often seems to me that America's sacrifices of blood are usually shrugged off
as just another instance of self-serving American selfishness. And frankly,
that angers me. Hey, I'm not here to defend the shame in my country's past. I
don't wave the flag much, but I'm not ashamed to carry it. Blood was spilled.
American G.I.'s went off to Europe, went off to the South Pacific, because their
government told them to do it, and because they were *needed*. Mothers lost
their sons, wives lost their husbands, children lost their fathers...as they did
in Australia. Sure, their was national interests involved, but there was,
ultimately, great national sacrifice on the part of common men and women...just
as in Australia.
> Most people in the world make enormous contributions to the profits of
> American corporations.
Indeed, but there is a difference between making voluntary contributions because
one likes the product, and being forced into the purchase of a necessity, such
as grain, due to monopoly control. The latter is happening to millions of
American farmers - the rise of the rural ghetto - due to the monopoly control of
both the inputs and outputs of farm products by agribusiness giants such as
Pillsbury and ConAgra. My point in bringing this up is that robber-barron
capitalism preys on the weak where ever they might be, and these practices
aren't the American domain, per se; corporate piracy is war waged upon,
primarily, the low-wage earners of society. Most of the really repugnant
corporations -- the ones with the power to really exploit and monopolize are the
ones that have become *transnational*. This is a question of greed versus
honesty, not American vs. native. Plenty of non-Americans love the almighty
currency as well.
> > But most countries shake a fist at America, while keeping the other hand open
> > in case they need something. Maybe that's wrong, but it feels that way.
>
> The angry gesture of the disempowered perhaps?
Sure, when Bolivia shakes its fist, I'll agree. But do the Brittish, the
Germans, the French, the Canadians, maybe even the Australians, consider
themselves disempowered? There is a lot of fist-shaking toward America in
countries that regard us with an air of cultural superiority
james
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
