Why do they hate us?

Quote from KymarFye:
There is nothing remotely racist about Den Beste's analysis, in my opinion. ...Den Beste goes out of his way, as AAA notes, to ground the discussion on objective factors

if you haven't yet noticed sufficient evidence of intense anti-Western hatred and rage emanating from the Middle East, you have either not paid much attention to world events of the last forty or so years, or you're so politically correct that it has affected your eyesight and sense of hearing.
it collectively attributes negative characteristics to a group based on race, religion, and national origin. whether or not it is "racist," it seems clear that if almost any other protected group were substituted for "middle-eastern" in this essay, it would have been clearly "racist" and unfit for polite discourse, regardless of truth or objectivity.

obviously there is extreme anti-Western sentiment and fanatical hatred - but that is overbroad: it is not anti-Western, it is anti-American.
Which leaves only one other way: become relatively competitive by destroying all other cultures which are more capable.
it is not, apparently, "all" cultures, only American culture. if, as this essay argues, "they" are driven to destroy strip malls and subways built in opposition to the koran, then why not target any of the western European countries? why not target Japan, Australia, Canada?

despite amazing levels of technological achievement and scientific success, "they" do not burn Japanese flags in the street. one could not imagine a city more technologically advanced than Tokyo, yet "they" do not blow up Japanese embassies, as "they" should, were this premise valid.
 
Quote from Madison:


it collectively attributes negative characteristics to a group based on race, religion, and national origin. whether or not it is "racist," it seems clear that if almost any other protected group were substituted for "middle-eastern" in this essay, it would have been clearly "racist" and unfit for polite discourse, regardless of truth or objectivity.

I disagree. If the analysis 's based on objective factors and material measures, then it's not racist or taboo speech, anywhere. It's not racist to say that Africa suffers especially badly from the global AIDS epidemic and that most African countries are a mess. The same or similar analyses might be cited by those arguing for aid or other policies.

obviously there is extreme anti-Western sentiment and fanatical hatred - but that is overbroad: it is not anti-Western, it is anti-American.

Historically, it has been anti-Western - especially anti-Christian during the early years of Islam, just because the countries of Christendom were the main countries in the way of Muslim expansion during the golden age of Islam. Since the US became recognized as the world's economic and military leader, Muslim anger and resentment previous focused on Europe was transferred to America - though America also became the focus of reformist forces in the Islamic world, repeating the historical pattern.

it is not, apparently, "all" cultures, only American culture. if, as this essay argues, "they" are driven to destroy strip malls and subways built in opposition to the koran, then why not target any of the western European countries? why not target Japan, Australia, Canada?

Several high-profile plots and acts have targeted non-American Westerners - such as the Bali nightclub bombings most recently. Very high-profile plots in Britain and France - including a famous incident that targeted the Eiffel Tower - have been broken up. In previous years, there were bombings and attacks of various sorts throughout the world, sometimes at targets associated mainly with America or Israel, sometimes not.

despite amazing levels of technological achievement and scientific success, "they" do not burn Japanese flags in the street. one could not imagine a city more technologically advanced than Tokyo, yet "they" do not blow up Japanese embassies, as "they" should, were this premise valid.

Singling out Japan is an obvious red herring. The country's involvement in the Middle East has never had much of a profile there, at least compared to that of the Western nations. I believe it mainly has consisted of sending money and selling products.

Anyway, Den Beste is not offering up some simplistic formula, but rather offering a broad description of tendencies that have been discussed in much greater detail elsewhere, both within the Islamic world and outside of it. Historically, as I said, the West has been the Islamic world's focus, for good geopolitical and cultural-historical reasons. For centuries, the Muslims despised Westerners (Christendom) as their obvious inferiors, for what seemed to be good reasons. Beginning around the 15th Century, the situation began to change. Since then, there's been intense conflict in the Islamic world over how to cope - with a wide range of options having been explored. We happen to be living during a period when an extreme anti-Western strain (total rejection of Western/modern influences, dreams of eventual victory over and conversion of the infidel lands) has attained unusual prominence.

If you're really interested in reaching a better understanding, I suggest you read Bernard Lewis's scholarly work on the subject. His book WHAT WENT WRONG? (written prior to 9/11) goes into extensive, fascinating detail on how the Islamic world has self-consciously sought to answer that question ever since the fact that something had gone very wrong became obvious to many Muslims.
 
Quote from KymarFye:
It's not racist to say that Africa suffers especially badly from the global AIDS epidemic and that most African countries are a mess.
that does not go as far as the essay did -- this is not an appropriate topic for discussion here, but suffice to say that a politician should be very careful tying AIDS rates to cultural and religious factors.
Several high-profile plots and acts have targeted non-American Westerners
without doubt. I still offer that the hatred directed toward the US is larger by orders of magnitude. I would like to be wrong on this.
Singling out Japan is an obvious red herring. The country's involvement in the Middle East has never had much of a profile there, at least compared to that of the Western nations. I believe it mainly has consisted of sending money and selling products.
Exactly. but that is not what the essay said, that wasn't the thrust of the argument:
They hate us because our culture is everything theirs is not. Our culture is vibrant and fecund; our economies are successful. Our achievements are magnificent. Our engineering and science are advancing at breathtaking speed. Our people are fat and happy (relatively speaking). We are influential, we are powerful, we are wealthy. "We" are the western democracies, but in particular "we" are the United States, which is the most successful of the western democracies by a long margin. America is the most successful nation in the history of the world, economically and technologically and militarily and even culturally.
this says nothing about involvement. everything attributed here to the US is equally attributable to Japan (or Australia or Canada)
Anyway, Den Beste is not offering up some simplistic formula, but rather offering a broad description of tendencies that have been discussed in much greater detail elsewhere, both within the Islamic world and outside of it.
it seems that that is exactly what he is doing - offering more of the ridiculous nonsense they doled out as an explanation for 9/11, that frustrated, underevolved, mindless 'ay-rabs' are lashing out against the stars-n-stripes, to punish the infidels for their bowling alleys, hot dogs, and strip clubs. perhaps that dismissiveness and disregard for motive indicates something more substantial.
Historically, as I said, the West has been the Islamic world's focus, for good geopolitical and cultural-historical reasons.
certainly - and you've laid out many of them -- as opposed to the simplistic 'inferior ay-rab fanatics' argument of the essay - that type of arrogant, dismissive thinking will not solve this problem in the long term, no matter how many bombs or spy satellites or photo playing cards are used.
 
KymarFye,

You're wasting your time. They think throwing out the "r" word silences all debate. Must be a real shock to leave university and actually have to defend one's opinions.
 
American girls and American guys
Will always stand up and salute, we'll always recognize
When we see Ole Glory Flyin
Theres alot of men dead so we can sleep in peace
At night when we lay down our head...

My daddy served in the Army when he lost his right eye
But he flew our flag out in our yard til the day that he died
He wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me
To grow up and live happy in the land of the free
Now this nation that I love has fallen under attack
A mighty sucker punch came flyin in from somewhere in the back
Soon as we can see clearly through our big black eye
Man, we lit up your world like the Fourth of July!!

Hey Uncle Sam put your name, at the top of his list!!
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist
And the eagle will fly and it's gonna be hell
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell
It'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you
Oh brought to you, Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue

Justice will be served and the battle will rage
This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage
You'll be sorry that you messed with the U S of A
Cause we'll put a boot in your ass
Its the American Way

Hey Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist
And the eagle will fly and its gonna be hell
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell
It'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you
Brought to you Courtesy of, The Red White and Blue!!

Oh my Red, White, and Blue
Oh my Red, White, and Blue
Oh my Red, White, and Blue

Oh my Red, White, and Blue!!!





i salute you armed forces! !!
 
Quote from Madison:

it seems that that is exactly what he is doing - offering more of the ridiculous nonsense they doled out as an explanation for 9/11, that frustrated, underevolved, mindless 'ay-rabs' are lashing out against the stars-n-stripes, to punish the infidels for their bowling alleys, hot dogs, and strip clubs. perhaps that dismissiveness and disregard for motive indicates something more substantial.

I think that ypur obviously exaggerated caricature is unfair to Den Beste, and to Americans more generally: Without a doubt, there were and are many moronic bigots, and boosterism and aggressive outrage as in the song that LongShot so helpfully, ahem, quoted above are natural, but, from the top down, reaction to 9/11 and more lately to Iraq has been, in my opinion, much more typically characterized by respect for and earnest interest in the Arab world and its sensitivities - alongside a committed response to its deficits and dangers.

When I think of Bush speaking today to Arab-Americans in Michigan, or of the way that American (and British) Soldiers and Marines have conducted themselves with Iraqi civilians (the vast majority not firing at them), then I think your description qualifies much more clearly as an example of prejudice and unreasoning use of stereotypes - or as, you later put it, "arrogant, dismissive thinking."

Please don't bother bringing up Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, or other marginal figures, or the occasional message board crank - they're the exception, not the rule, by far, and there are at least as many equally foul and excessive voices coming from the other side. I have no doubt also that someone more interested in scoring some pointless point than in gaining a larger understanding can come up with some photo of an Iraqi victim or a prisoner at Gitmo, along with some stupid jibe. When you consider what's been thrown at us, and is continually thrown up at us, from the Arab world, from Europe, and from anti-warriors inside America, the overall reaction from Americans and from the Administration has been comparatively calm and rational - marked much more by seriousness of purpose and tempered idealism than by blind emotionalism or racial scapegoating.
 
German warnings not borne out by Iraq war
Dire predictions look like anti-U.S. feeding frenzy in hindsight

Eric Geiger, Chronicle Foreign Service Thursday, May 1, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Munich -- Not so long ago, prominent German politicians were outdoing each other forecasting worst-case scenarios for the Iraq conflict. The predictions ranged from "millions of victims of U.S. rockets" to "millions of Iraqi refugees desperately fleeing the country."

While few are willing yet to eat their words publicly, the media is having a field day with the wildly inaccurate pronouncements.

"They were all wrong with their horror scenarios," snorted the Bildzeitung, Germany's largest nationally distributed newspaper. Under the heading "The embarrassing predictions on the war by our politicians," the paper recently listed some of the most erroneous ones.

On March 21, Social Democratic parliamentary President Wolfgang Thierse, one of the country's most influential leaders, told a Cologne newspaper, "Millions of people in Baghdad will be victims of bombs and rockets."

Environmental Minister Juergen Trittin of the Green Party, the junior partner in Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's coalition, grandly declared on Feb. 26, "The German government possesses various studies expecting up to 200,000 victims of military operations in Iraq. And it is feared that another 200,000 persons will die from indirect results of the war."

Greens Co-chair Angelike Beer predicted that "U.S. aggression in Iraq will result in the explosion of the Near and Middle East."

The ZDF TV network, considered one of the prime practitioners of anti- American war coverage, is also playing the postwar blame game.

"All the so-called experts were wide of the mark with their forecasts," noted Theo Koll, moderator of the prime time news feature show "Frontel." Among the footage shown to prove his point was Development Minister Heidemarie Wielczorek-Zeul, a Social Democrat, emotionally predicting on a talk show that "3 million Iraqi refugees will be flooding neighboring countries."

Not only politicians badly miscalculated the war's outcome.

Peter Scholl-Latour, a 79-year-old author, former TV news commentator and household name, who is regarded as Germany's top Mideast expert, was a fixture on nationwide TV programs.

Asserting that "not even 500,000 U.S. soldiers fighting in Vietnam could prevent the debacle there," Scholl-Latour on March 29 predicted that the war would "last for a very long time." He added, "The progress of war so far is an acute embarrassment for the U.S. The Iraqis have tremendous national pride, and they fight in the name of Allah. . . . The Americans will have to bury their dreams of world domination."

Gerhard Haderer, an Austrian cartoonist also popular in Germany, said on March 29, "This war won't be decided on the battlefield, but by the images in the media. . . . A few more pictures of the totally terrified U.S. prisoners of war taken by the Iraqi, and Herr Bush and his oil billionaires can forget about their fantasies of a New World order."

Reporters have largely failed to obtain mea culpas from the rejectionists, though the Green Party's Beer said meekly in a brief statement, "Our assessment was based on information we received from aid organizations."

"Those predicting the worst-case scenarios clearly . . . tried to cash in on the widespread opposition to the war in Germany," concluded Udo Steinbach, chief of the Orient Institute in Hamburg, a think tank on Mideast affairs.

On March 28, a nationwide poll by ZDF indicated that 84 percent blamed the conflict wholly on the United States and President Bush, and only 26 percent held Saddam Hussein responsible. Another poll conducted April 3 for the Stern magazine showed 89 percent of Germans do not regard America as a role model.

The deputy editor in chief of Stern, Hans-Ulrich Joerges, asserted in a recent issue that many Germans greeted early U.S. military missteps in Iraq with "clammy joy" and "perverse partisanship."


A study commissioned by the respected Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper pinned part of the blame on German television networks, which it said constantly criticized the U.S.-led military action as an illegitimate attack in which innocent civilians were the primary victims.

"Saddam's terror was no topic for the German TV media, but criticism of America was," the study concluded.


"If Americans would have watched German television during the war, and Germans would have viewed U.S. programs, their respective moods . . . would have been reversed."

The conservative daily Die Welt blasted the coverage by the huge, publicly owned ARD TV network, saying, "Every night new catastrophes were being depicted, ranging from the allegedly inflamed Mideast, the fury of the Arab masses . . . and the bloodbaths caused by allied bombs among the civilian population."


Television's role in molding public opinion was underscored by a recent survey of youngsters at a Meunster high school who had taken part in anti- American peace marches.

None knew where Iraq is located geographically. Nor did any of them know anything about Hussein's brutal regime. All said they got their information about "the American barbarity" from German media reports -- chiefly those of ARD and ZDF.


One of Germany's great literary figures, author-playwright Hans Magnus Enzensberger, 73, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, "The great compassion shown by the media for the relatively few victims of the Iraq war stands in bizarre contrast to its lack of interest for the victims of 30 other and often far crueler wars currently being fought all over the world."

Enzensberger also had bitter words for the hundreds of thousands of protesters who marched against the war chanting "No blood for oil." It came, he said, "from the mouths of people who greatly value their automobiles, their heating systems and their vacation trips, and whose indignation would quickly find another target if the gas stations would be empty, the thermostat below freezing and all flights to . . . Mallorca were canceled."

Now that Hussein has been deposed, the allegations of American arrogance seem to be moderating, and more Germans are feeling the need to mend frayed transatlantic ties.

"Thanks to Chancellor Schroeder's policies, German-American relations are in shambles," declared top Christian Democratic Party leader Wolfgang Schaeuble. "We must do everything to quickly repair them."

"We need the Americans much more than they need us -- economically and militarily," said Willy Hasenstein, a veteran Social Democrat from Munich. "And that's why we should make peace with them."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/01/MN306600.DTL
 
How cruel of you to publicly demean msfe/wild's heroes!

You know what this means, don't you? The Mother of all cut-and-paste sessions will commence in short order.
 
Very good article Kymar. Very objective and empirical, I liked how they use the word victim as being a sort of dead casualty as if the word "victim" doesn't mean the kind that has to go through weeks without water or electricity or the one that lost a loved one, the one who suffers psychologically, or the one who gets cancer from depleted uranium.

In that sense, victims can easily amount to one million, but I guess they were more interested in finding that one german guy who would find something to say against the German government.

The fact and the issue is not whether or not the coalition was "lucky" enough not to create too many direct casualties. The issue is whether the war was warranted in the first place, creating mass international dissention, dire economic consequences and put the stability of the world at stake. This is what's important. NOT WHETHER OR NOT it happened to be a profitable trade.

Now on a more objective note:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2991995.stm
 
Back
Top