What the world thinks of America

June 16, 2003 6:15 AM

What the world thinks of America...are we about to find out for sure? A special live global forum will be broadcast in a dozen countries later this week, hosted in London, and bringing in the opinions of media representatives of Israel, France, Australia, Brazil, Jordan and more. The forum also features the likes of Benazir Bhutto and Joe Klein. Whatever your opinion of the part the United States plays in our world, it's undeniable that it will be a dominating force in the near future.
posted by Jimbob (39 comments total)

How on earth can this be objective? I could walk in to any city in the US and air 20 people who love France and 20 people who hate it, but it wouldn't be reflecting the populace.

TV is so low resolution... Try a scientific survey instead.
posted by kfury at 6:24 AM on June 16, 2003

"Whatever your opinion of the part the United States plays in our world, it's undeniable that it will be a dominating force in the near future."

And it's quite likely that it will be marginalized soon after that... ;->
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:26 AM on June 16, 2003

I knew it was hot in here today but I thought it was managerial hot air not the gas powered toastiness of a flamewar in the making... ;)
posted by twine42 at 6:28 AM on June 16, 2003

Ohhhh.... I hope they like us, I hope they like us.

Bulgaria once passed me a note saying that Germany thought we were cute.

I think the Netherlands are dreamy {sigh}.
posted by jpburns at 6:28 AM on June 16, 2003

The BBC's poll to find the "Greatest American" settled on Homer Simpson.
posted by mopoke at 6:38 AM on June 16, 2003

Adding to mopoke's comment, here's the top 10 as it stood on Friday...

Homer Simpson: 40.83%
Abraham Lincoln: 10.28%
Martin Luther King Jnr: 10.06%
Thomas Jefferson: 6.43%
Mr T: 8.38%
Bob Dylan: 6.15%
George Washington: 5.10%
Franklin D Roosevelt: 4.34%
Benjamin Franklin: 4.52%
Bill Clinton: 3.92%
posted by monkey closet at 6:42 AM on June 16, 2003

Is there anyone left on the globe, even in the most distant. inaccessible tribes, who hasn't been asked what he or she thinks of America?
posted by Summer at 6:55 AM on June 16, 2003

Just to add a little clarity, the BBC has done shows like this before, and they're not designed to provide definite answers - they're just a forum for discussion and ideas. And given some of the anti-American rhetoric that hangs around unchecked in our everyday discourse, I don't see this being a bad thing.

Incidentally, given that the show is being hosted in London, wouldn't it have been appropriate to have that as the main link in the post? Maybe we should be asking what the world thinks of Australians..
posted by ascullion at 6:58 AM on June 16, 2003

ascullion: Maybe we should be asking what the world thinks of Australians.

Chazzwazzers.
posted by davidmsc at 7:14 AM on June 16, 2003

BBC has done shows like this before

"What is it that you want?", asked the anchor of a previous one to a non-American citizen participating in the discussion.

"If America is to rule the world, I want to vote in the American elections"

I couldn't agree more.
posted by magullo at 7:40 AM on June 16, 2003

We dish it out but can't take it
posted by johnny7 at 7:41 AM on June 16, 2003

More interesting question is probably will America give a feck?

What does the world think of Australians? Brings to mind the old Alexei Sayle joke: The comedian, when asked by an Australian immigration officer whether he had a criminal record, replied "I'm sorry, I didn't realise you still needed one."
posted by squealy at 7:46 AM on June 16, 2003

Ancient Chinese saying: Those who know don't ask; those who don't know ask. 'Tis better to be disliked, feared, dispised than to be ignored.
posted by Postroad at 7:48 AM on June 16, 2003

Every country is like a particular type of person. America is like a belligerent, adolescent boy; Canada is like an intelligent, 35-year-old woman. Australia is like Jack Nicholson. It comes right up to you and laughs very hard in your face in a highly threatening and engaging manner.

Douglas Adams
posted by monkey closet at 8:04 AM on June 16, 2003

Well, it'd be like the old Roman maxim "let them hate as long as they fear". Except that the Romans also made the peoples of the lands they conquered Roman citizens. At least those lands they didn't sow with salt.

But on that, I don't really blame the American people for the actions of a government that didn't really get their mandate as such. The federal government here in Australia's just as bad - I reckon GWB's picked up a few hints on lying from John Howard and his pals.

As for what the world thinks of Australians, as an Australian, I say, who in the name the buggery really cares? Do I lose sleep at night because it bugs me that people think we all wrestle crocodiles for fun? No. Nationalistic navel-gazing is so tedious.
posted by GrahamVM at 8:25 AM on June 16, 2003

Perhaps the citizens of Israel, France, Australia, Brazil, and, Jordan can take comfort in the fact that they have about as much say in what the U.S. government does as the average american citizen.
posted by monkeyman at 8:33 AM on June 16, 2003

Looks suspiciously like one of those "let's gather some people to bash the USA under the pretense of objectivity and multiculturalism" things. It should also be noted that, regardless of these countries opinions about the US, all of them, without a single exception, owe whatever freedom they possess to the north american role in both World Wars, not to mention other historical facts of a not too distant past.
posted by 111 at 8:49 AM on June 16, 2003

GrahamVM

That would be Nationalistic omphaloskepsis, I believe....
posted by Pressed Rat at 8:57 AM on June 16, 2003

111: Russia may have helped just a little bit during the world wars... the eastern front absorbed a couple of bullets and inflicted a one or two casualties on Nazi Germany. Several million extra troops made available in Western Europe and North Africa may have proved to be a little bit of a problem.
posted by snarfodox at 9:19 AM on June 16, 2003

"all of them, without a single exception, owe whatever freedom they possess to the north american role in both World Wars"

::checks list, sees Canada::

::checks map of North America, sees Canada again::

...so you're saying that Canada owes whatever freedoms it possesses to Canada's role in both world wars, and you wonder why Canadians might want to do a wee bit of bashing on the US, or at least on some of its less-than-stellar thinkers?

::checks to see what 111's been smoking, asks to join in::

(it's probably from Jimbob's stash that inspired him to use that "dominating force in the near future line...)
posted by GhostintheMachine at 9:19 AM on June 16, 2003

let's gather some people to bash the USA under the pretense of objectivity and multiculturalism" things

Other than its assosication with nefarious LIBERALS (blooddrinkers!), what exactly is so wrong about multiculturalism? Certainly, when you use the word, it is meant with connotations that would send all reeling, but what is it that seems to upset people so?

Perhaps you were fortunate enough to grow up in an environment that stressed diversity, so you never got around to asking questions that had such obvious answers to you. If that is the case, please consider those who were raised in a more homogenous environment and want to expand our horizons.

I showed up the first day of college ignorrant as hell about anything outside of midwestern white people. I didn't know what falafel was. If not for the banner of "multiculturalism," which can certainly seem cheesy, I presume, many would not have to opportunity to ask quesitons about each other's backgrounds out of nothing more than curiosity. Maybe no one needs this where you are form, but many appreciate an institution that stresses and facilitates broadening the scope of one's knowledge about the world.

Convenient, then, that those who decry "multiculturalism" are so often those who despise all higher education as being hopelessly tainted by "liberal" ideas. Fortunately, many who do appreciate MC are also able to appreciate a range of "postmodern" ideas, and thus properly not give a shit as to whether our education fits into someone else's political rubric.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:32 AM on June 16, 2003

Free trade agreement poised to decimate Australian film & TV industry

Thank you America, for saving the world in WWII, for Full House, and The Real Cancun.
posted by dydecker at 9:49 AM on June 16, 2003

Russia may have helped just a little bit during the world wars...

Russia as in "russian weather" mostly. Russia, btw, tsarist or communist or whatever, was never known for being particularly freedom-friendly. It certainly did not infest eastern europe to expand the cause of liberty.

GhostintheMachine, no, in that sense North America for me translates as the USA . Of course you mean "hey, don't forget aboot Canada" or some such thing, but you know what I mean.

Without the USA, free western civilization would have been finished after 1914. Without the USA, there would be no globalization and no Internet, so the role of the US in granting freedom worldwide applies to everyone of us individually as well. The rest is resentment, envy and ignorance.

Ignatius,
what exactly is so wrong about multiculturalism?

Quite a few things. Shallowness. Relativism (like saying bongo players from Subsaharan Africa are just as good as Mozart etc). Lack of fundamental values (natural rights, democracy, freedom of speech, free trade etc).

I agree that diversity is good. I recall, for example, one Amazon review where a reader says he was raised in a racist, white environment but threw his prejudices away when he started listening to Ella Fitzgerald.

As an ideology, however, multiculturalist stances strike me as disingenuous or simply dumb. Please remember that multiculturalism is a two edged-sword; for instance, questions about someone's surname, which can be a simple, well-meant curiosity, may also be construed as xenophobia. Also remember that the multiculturalist argument is often used to defend stuff like female genital mutilation in Africa and the horrendous, immoral, criminal treatment women get on many (mostly muslim) countries.

To bring us back to the thread's subject, rejecting american values in toto would be like throwing out the entire western civilization's moral legacy. It's important to keep in mind that the USA, while not perfect, are responsible for keeping alive the world's greatest ideals, including the absortion of immigrants and their values, within reason .
posted by 111 at 10:13 AM on June 16, 2003

Homer Simpson: 40.83%
Abraham Lincoln: 10.28%
Martin Luther King Jnr: 10.06%
Thomas Jefferson: 6.43%


Quite frankly, with a poll that produces results like that, that pretty much makes me feel who the hell cares what they think.
posted by piper28 at 10:31 AM on June 16, 2003

Quite a few things. Shallowness. Relativism (like saying bongo players from Subsaharan Africa are just as good as Mozart etc). Lack of fundamental values (natural rights, democracy, freedom of speech, free trade etc).

What harm comes about as a result of the relativism that you cite? I don't like classical music, but I do like a lot of African music. Am I just wrong? And what the hell does multiculturalism have to do with a "lack of fundamental values"? You pulled that out of your ass, right? Free speech and free trade both serve the larger end of (small-r)republican pluralism, which I believe is perfectly embodied by multiculturalism on a global scale. Market-->marketplace of ideas-->"marketplace" of cultures.

Please remember that multiculturalism is a two edged-sword; for instance, questions about someone's surname, which can be a simple, well-meant curiosity, may also be construed as xenophobia.

But multiculturalism provides a space in which this kind of inquiry can be appropriate. In any case, sure, people can be offended by whatever they like. I would rather have them be mistakenly offended by an honest question. I don't know if it is an "ideology," per se. It is not for me, but I fell that it is an intellectual principle that has served a number of institutions well.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:45 AM on June 16, 2003

Also remember that the multiculturalist argument is often used to defend stuff like female genital mutilation in Africa and the horrendous, immoral, criminal treatment women get on many (mostly muslim) countries.


Please give examples.
posted by cell divide at 10:46 AM on June 16, 2003

Okay, 111, the USA is not North America. North America is a continent with three countries. The terms aren't interchangeable and your insistence on treating them as such is exactly the kind of arrogance that leads to America-bashing.

And I wasn't gonna bring it up, but you keep insisting on it.

History Lesson: The US didn't join WWI until 1917. They didn't have troops on the front until almost the very end of the war. And, as I recall, they didn't join WWII until the end of 1941. When they themselves were put in danger. Then they got real concerned about the rest of the world's freedom.
Canada was in both wars from the beginning.

And, nobody's rejecting American values "in toto." America being populous, monied and militarily powerful, with a growingtendency to poke its fingers (or bombs or whatever) into the pies of pretty much the whole world, I think the rest of the world has every right to consider what America means to them.
posted by SoftRain at 10:51 AM on June 16, 2003

cell divide, multiculturalism is the argument used by african and muslim nations at international conferences to tame language condemning the mistreatment of women, including attempts to openly address the issue of genital mutilation; it has been used as recently as 2002, when an article from the Johannesburg Summit's Plan of Implementation (which has social as well as environmental sections) had to be reopened at the last minute because it had been distorted by delegates of muslim countries so as to somehow validate different interpretations of women's rights.

BTW, a nigerian woman is being prosecuted and can be condemned to death by stone throwing because she's accused of having a baby without being married or something like that.

Ignatius,
What harm comes about as a result of the relativism that you cite?

It dispenses with core fundamentals such as merit and the pecking orders inherent to life.

I don't like classical music, but I do like a lot of African music. Am I just wrong?

No, but you're deaf as far as I'm concerned, in the sense that you're incapable of discerning between music as a tribal output and music as the refined expression of man's excellence and effort.

And what the hell does multiculturalism have to do with a "lack of fundamental values"?

See my answer to celldivide above. Multiculturalism as such is anything goes: polygamy, abortion and gender inequalities are all multicultural, but I still think they're wrong options, so I defend a certain kind of morality which is judeochristian western (Athens-Jerusalem so to speak). Democracy itself is not multicultural: it's a product of the Western World that's refined to the point of embracing other cultures, but not to the point of letting these cultures destroy the framework of democracy itself.

Free speech and free trade both serve the larger end of (small-r)republican pluralism, which I believe is perfectly embodied by multiculturalism on a global scale.

Wrong. That's your republican, pluralist, Democrat (big-d), naive point of view. The world, my friend, is still very distant from a cultured, civil gathering of people and opinions.

History Lesson: The US didn't join WWI until 1917

Softrain, that's immaterial: it's the magnitude of U.S. intervention in both conflicts that counts, as well as its role during the cold war and so on. With all due respect, Canada's part in history is on an altogether different, more modest level.
posted by 111 at 11:30 AM on June 16, 2003

111, great idea. Why don't you buy a safari suit, go off to the wilds of Africa, confiscate the natives' "bongos", and introduce them to Mozart! See you in a few years!
posted by dydecker at 11:48 AM on June 16, 2003

multiculturalism is the argument used by african and muslim nations at international conferences to tame language condemning the mistreatment of women, including attempts to openly address the issue of genital mutilation; it has been used as recently as 2002, when an article from the Johannesburg Summit's Plan of Implementation (which has social as well as environmental sections) had to be reopened at the last minute because it had been distorted by delegates of muslim countries so as to somehow validate different interpretations of women's rights.

Interesting reading of what happened there, considering the largest and most forceful debate behind this resolution came from the United States delegation, who worried that granting explicit medical rights to women would open the door up to universal legal access to abortion. Abortion, rather than FGM was the main issue in this statement. While it's true that the US and the Muslim world sided against Canada and the EU on this issue, I highly doubt that the US used "multiculturalism" to justify its stand against women's health language.

Furthermore, in the end a compromise was reached, which said that all people have fundamental rights, but that medical treatment should consistent with religious and cultural values. Incompatible? Maybe, maybe not... but in the end the EU, Canada, the US, and the Islamic countries were able to compromise. Is this a bad thing? Should the US live under EU and Canadian dictat? Or is a form of 'multiculturalism,' which allows nations to compromise on important issues actually a good thing?

I think you are confusing "multiculturalism" as an educational concept which I find is usually quite ridiculous, with how it plays out in the real world, which can often be beneficial, especially in business.
posted by cell divide at 1:42 PM on June 16, 2003

cell divide, the USA weren't trying to endorse or greenlight genital mutilation as a valid cultural trait, but rather trying to curb abuses against life, including abortion. The fact the USA took a stand against abortion is not in contradiction to the US condemnation of barbaric practices against women. The USA and the muslim countries had different motivations concerning the original article's slant towards irresponsible multiculturalism.

In the end, it wasn't a multicultural discussion at all, but rather one side (western) defending life while the other had a different, less ethical view.

is a form of 'multiculturalism,' which allows nations to compromise on important issues actually a good thing?

It's a terrible thing when it means maintaining the state of affairs in muslim countries re women's rights. Now things go slowly in the multilateral realm, but the fact that everybody regardless of gender is entitled to proper medical care and equal rights is unavoidable, and multiculturalism in this context is nothing but an obstacle towards real (as opposed to anthropological) civilization.

Multiculturalism is a concept, just like postcolonialism, and they're both often contrary to what I consider, as I said, essential values. The way it "plays out in the real world" is uncertain; it can be good, it can be awful. It can be Marco Polo or Mr. Kurtz depending on the circumstances. But the western concept of democracy coupled with capitalism is the very best option.
posted by 111 at 2:35 PM on June 16, 2003

but rather one side (western) defending life while the other had a different, less ethical view.

But the sides were the US and some Islamic countries (not all) vs. the EU and Canada.

On one side you had the idea that personal liberty (a woman's right to choose her own form of medical practice, represented by the EU and Canada) and on the other side you had the idea that the state, or cultural, or religious authorities should have the power to control and set limits on female medicine. This side was represented by the United States and some Islamic countries, none of which, by the way were trying to protect Genital mutilation, but rather protect the control men have over women's reproduction. So while the United States may of in fact been defending the life of the fetus, in terms of 'sides', the side they were on is the side that says that the state/religion/culture can control the access a female has to certain medical services.

This is not the Western way of thinking that you passionately elaborate on above, but rather the pursuit of 'virtue' ahead of 'liberty', which the EU and Canadian side was defending. By your own admission, the US is then a obstacle to the adoption of Western ideals. How does this square with virtually all of your previous statements?
posted by cell divide at 3:31 PM on June 16, 2003

ascullion: I discovered the show was on through the Australian ABC, so that's what I linked to. Besides, they have a dramatic black / eagle background!
posted by Jimbob at 3:42 PM on June 16, 2003

Jimbob: Don't worry, didn't mean any disrespect or any such thing.
posted by ascullion at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2003

111: It should be noted that... these countries... owe whatever freedom they possess to the north american role in both World Wars, not to mention other historical facts of a not too distant past.

So run along now children.
posted by pots at 3:58 PM on June 16, 2003

You seem to mix two separate things. The abortion issue is about the right to live; liberty for the unborn babies, virtue for the system that protects the lives of all innocent, including those who lack a voice to defend themselves. Female mutilation is about the right to protect women's bodies from harm. Within the western world, opinions may differ re abortion, but never ever re FGM.

Islamic countries, none of which, by the way were trying to protect Genital mutilation,

False. Some of them were and are worried about express condemnation of FGM.

By your own admission, the US is then a obstacle to the adoption of Western ideals. How does this square with virtually all of your previous statements?

Anarchy and boundless, nihilistic liberty are not part of the western ideals.

in terms of 'sides', the side they [the USA] were on is the side that says that the state/religion/culture can control the access a female has to certain medical services.

Nonsense. Calling abortion clinics "certain medical services" is delusional. The USA, IMHO, was working against precisely this kind of malevolent interpretation that tries to turn abortion, a highly complex and serious matter, into a standard clinical procedure. Western ideals, as far as I can recall, do not include the right to kill or maim.
posted by 111 at 4:28 PM on June 16, 2003

Anarchy and boundless, nihilistic liberty are not part of the western ideals.

So it's your position that Canada and the EU were attempting to permit anarchy, and boundless, nihilistic liberty by making a woman's right to choose her own treatment a fundamental right?

I still don't see how you can get around the fact that, boiled down to its essentials, the majority of the Western World voted for the rights of women to unequivocally choose their own medicine, while the US joined with other religious countries to protect the right of the state to sanction and control women's health. Whatever the reasons for either group to support state control, I still can't help but feel that you are attempting to graft your personal mix of morality onto what you claim to be western values.

As science cannot determine when a fetus becomes a human being, or when life truly begins, it is a matter of faith, or 'religion'. Hellenistic thought dictates that when a matter falls into the matter of religion, the state should not intervene. Until science can unequivocally decide the matter, Western tradition says that the state should not be involved, because to do so is a conflict between church and state. Furthermore, even from a religious perspective, there is no agreement on abortion. In the broad spectrum of Judeo-Christina beliefs, some groups are fundamentally opposed to abortion, some permit it, and some permit it on certain grounds. So what what you claim to be patently Western and Judeo-Christian is truly not either, but rather an attempt by a certain segment of the latter to subvert the former.

Which brings me back to the original dispute, about multiculturalism. By your own definition, the mix of traditions brought by the US delegation is multicultural (a mix of religious, community, and historical values), and you stand behind it fully. However, when presented with a culture you are less familar with you reject it on the grounds of "multiculturalism" that attempts to compare bongos to Beethoven or some other ridiculous comparison. It seems that far from being opposed to multiculturalism per se, you are actually just using that as a code for 'foreign'. In the end it doesn't matter to you if both sides of the issue are a mix of various beliefs, or if they indeed follow western norms, but rather if it fits into what you personally believe. And this, it must be said, is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.
posted by cell divide at 4:53 PM on June 16, 2003

cell divide, so we've gone into the abortion thing here. I'm against it. I do believe it's murder. Most christians like myself probably agree. Western tradition has evolved a lot from classical Greece onwards (Aristotle, for instance, said that malformed infants should be killed right after birth); this tradition now sees life as almost sacred, and individuals as worthy and deserving of respect and protection regardless of their differences.

So it's your position that Canada and the EU were attempting to permit anarchy, and boundless, nihilistic liberty by making a woman's right to choose her own treatment a fundamental right

No; it's my position that they were not considering seriously enough the multiple levels beneath the original article; except for cases where the woman's life is at serious risk, abortion is not a "treatment". I do not know the canadian and european governments views on abortion, but if they were for it they should say so and take undisguised moral responsibility for their actions and stances, as opposed to merely fiddling with a dubious article with dubious meanings.

I still don't see how you can get around the fact that, boiled down to its essentials, the majority of the Western World voted for the rights of women to unequivocally choose their own medicine

Pennyroyal tea and coat hangers are not medicine; they're weapons. Your concept of "medicine" needs revision.

By your own definition, the mix of traditions brought by the US delegation is multicultural (a mix of religious, community, and historical values), and you stand behind it fully.

Wrong; none of the USA's points of view fell outside the scope of western morality.

It seems that far from being opposed to multiculturalism per se, you are actually just using that as a code for 'foreign'. In the end it doesn't matter to you if both sides of the issue are a mix of various beliefs, or if they indeed follow western norms, but rather if it fits into what you personally believe. And this, it must be said, is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

I'll give you the bottomline definition of Western morals as I see it: do unto others what you'd have them do unto you.
posted by 111 at 5:23 PM on June 16, 2003

There's your problem right there: "do unto others what you'd have them do unto you." That's all well and good as a personal moral stance, but shouldn't a government have a higher moral bottom-line?

I'd rather see a government "do unto society what is best for it" rather than see one that "does unto society what it damn well feels like because my 'god' says to."

What right does a government have to restrict MY rights based on what was written in some ~3000-year-old fairy-tale? (How old is the bible, anyway?)

You have your morals, I have mine. Because you got yours from a book, doesn't mean yours are any better.
posted by cheaily at 4:40 AM on June 17, 2003