Subject:
|
Re: Ok, why such anti-American sentiment? (Was Re: the metric system)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 May 2001 14:53:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
486 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
>
> First, I'd like to say that I appreciate all of the information.
I hope it's all as correct as I think it is! :)
> I'm quite
> interested in the role that nations such as Australia and Canada played in the
> theater of the World Wars, chiefly because I'm afraid to say that I know quite
> little about their contributions.
You and I both. It's especially shameful for me, because
it's my *job* to know the Empire--but the big problem is that
the research and writing just haven't been done yet, and that's
done an enormous disservice to every ANZAC who risked (and gave)
their lives in those wars. To be fair, the Anglo-Boer War
and WWI have been getting more and more treatment, and I'm
sure that WWII can't be far behind. (I may be totally off-
base on this, as I've never seen what Australian and NZ
domestic publishing puts on the shelves at home; this is
just what I see in research libraries.)
But if you want a good story of cooperation under the
extreme duress of the early Pacific war, check out any
good book leading up to the Guadalcanal campaign--in
particular the ABDA Cruiser Squadron (Australian British
Dutch American) that, for some time, represented the
only significant Allied naval presence in the region.
And they did suffer massively, especially the Australians.
> > But IIRC the US became a larger trading partner with Australia
> > and New Zealand than the UK quite early on--shortly after WWI,
> > I believe. It was simple logistics that even imperial preference
> > and the Sterling Area couldn't overcome.
>
> Interesting. I've been under the impression that the UK has always been
> Australia's and New Zealand's main trading partner (although I'd expect that the
> Pacific Rim would be about on par by now.)
Maybe someone in the Great Green South can clear this up.
The Australian Board of Statistics has an interesting site available,
although I can't say I agree with their choice of toolbar colour:
http://www.abs.gov.au/
This jawbreaker is a statistical sheet by country:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/5e3ac7411e37881aca2568b0007afd16/0f2379844ac8e39aca2569de007d9ace!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,exports,imports,origin
In short, by a factor of two, Japan is today Australia's
largest trading partner. Second is the United States.
Third is Korea, fourth is New Zealand. Somewhere down
in the early teens is the UK; in fact, all of Europe
together doesn't even match Japan.
Man, do I love the Internet!
> > Well, yes. When they were in the ascendant, we were uncouth yahoos.
> > Now that the US is the dominant imperial power, we're *dangerous*
> > uncouth yahoos, bent on imposing our uncultured ways upon them.
> > So in a sense, it *is* the angry gesture of the disempowered.
> > It's a rather old debate, one that's been going on since at least
> > 1883 (IIRC) and the Exposition Universelles in Paris. The funny
> > thing, to me, is that without local collaborators and a market,
> > all of this "Americanism" would go absolutely nowhere.
>
> My sentiments exactly; again, at the risk of redundancy, I'd say that there is a
> big difference between forced market coercion and free market. A comment was
> made in the beginning of the thread that America forces all sorts of goods on
> Canada. Eh? My shoes are made in Taiwan, and I'd wager that so are those of my
> friends to the north.
Nope. They don't have the same tariff barriers to mainland
China that we do (or, to be more precise, preferences for
Taiwan that we have), so as a result more Chinese clothing
and merchandise is available for much less in Canada. Cuban
cigars, too. Viva la Revolucion! (Imagine diacriticals.)
> True, much of the overseas labor is financed by American
> corporations,
Just what is an "American" corporation anymore? By the terms
that we use to describe corporations as "American," then
Chrysler is now a German company. (That wasn't really a merger,
you know. Trust me, I'm a Detroiter.)
> but...every industrialized Western market is very lucrative for
> consumer goods. I know its just a wee lad in a great big world, so market-wise,
> I don't make much difference; but nonetheless, my philosophy is to vote with my
> dollars. I don't care for MTV and HBO, so i don't pay for cable. I pretty much
> try to ignore "popular" or faddish culture, although i admit to owning a pair of
> Sketchers tennies. Yeah, it's inconsistent, but, even so, I don't feel that I
> bought them 'cause The Man told me to. If it offends my sensibilities, I avoid
> it. I send my money down channels that i support. No one makes me purchase any
> particular brand of luxury good, and no American corporation, no matter how
> slick their advertising, actually coerces money out of wealthy foreign markets.
Exactly. What we have is numbers and money in one place,
able to go in one direction and push one agenda. That's
what happens, not some insidious and aggressive desire to
push ourselves on others. You don't hear the same ideas
being tossed around about Japan (anymore, really)--they're
different enough that their "invasion" of markets is seen
somehow as quaint, even when it's as obnoxious as Pokemon
or Nintendo or Sega...
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
