American English in the UK (continued)

<<We do lots of things that piss off other people now that we're strong, but we were despised by Europeans back when we were weak, too -- the British especially looked down on us as backward hayseeds in the colonial and post-colonial eras.>>

This just isn't true. At least, Americans were no more "despised" than any other nation. Casual xenophobia is prevalent everywhere, and if a single nation has been a victim of it in Britain, it's the French, not the Americans - followed in more recent times by the Germans.

Go back to the 18th century and the US was seen as a democratic Utopia by European liberal intellectuals. In the 19th century it was viewed with curiosity an fascination - have a read of Charles Dickens account of his travels there, and you won't find any broad, sweeping prejudices about America. It might have been seen of as brash in the early 20th century, but was still admired for its popular culture (see the boom of jazz and American film). There was non of the resentment there is now. If a snobby elitist section of British society scorned the "new money", that's hardly the same as widespread mistrust felt now across the globe. (And those 'elite' sections of society traditionally scorn everyone except themselves, even, and especially, other sections of British society)

As I said before, it's a complete cop out to dismiss anti-Americanism as blind prejudice and jealousy on the part of the rest of the world. It hasn't "always been there", the current bad feeling is unprecedented. And unless Americans make an effort to be more informed about their government's policies and call it to account the prejudice will remain, and intensify. It's a source of great frustration to the rest of the world that US presidents are largely elected on the basis of their domestic policy, with most of the electorate not bothering to inform themselves on foreign policy (unless it directly affects them i.e. bringing their relatives in the armed forces out of Iraq and back home) -despite the fact that the US government impacts massively on world affairs.

[US is hated because it's fighting in foreign soil. Obviously they never experienced any war on their own territories (except for Pearl Harbor back in 1940ies).]

It is tempting to dismiss this statement with impertinence, but I shall observe restraint.

Let me say that I have several ancestors who died in the Civil War, and leave it at that.

It really has to be said that British people generally hold a more overall negative view of the Americans as a race of people, also generally, than they do a positive one. If you were to ask them to define the reasons for this they would give a variety of replies, but jealousy is most definitely not one of them. What exactly is there to be jealous about anyway?

We in the UK (and Europe generally) have more favourable longevity rates, for both genders, than do the Americans, to state just one statistic.....most European countries are quite noticeably healthier than is the USA. As for violent crime in particular - sure, Britain has a problem with this in our metropolitan areas especially (and much of this is race related) but comparatively the rates still fall well below those over there.

Individually Americans can be really, really nice people - I know how true that is for I have met a few at uni and since. It's when they come in groups that Brits (Europeans) tend to think differently, and anti American sentiment can arise from a variety of perceptions over here, some which may be valid and some utter nonsense - recent political events are definitely part of the reasons for dislike and resentment, and the fact that the issue of "friendly fire" is seen as being a particularly American problem in war zones. That was true in WW2 when the Brits often used to joke about: "When the Germans come over Brits take cover, when the Brits come over Germans take cover, when the Americans come over everybody takes cover".

Sadly that sort of scenario has been demonstrated in current conflicts in desert hellholes. Very, very rarely have British troops fired on their allies or own men.

Europeans put that sort of thing down to the (perceived) trigger happy mentality of Americans in a country where the Constitution gives all its citizens the legal right to possess guns, and that the mindset of the Wild West still exists in many parts of America.

At least they don't come in pissed up rowdy mobs like the holiday sun spots of Southern Europe have to endure from over exuberant over intoxicated Brits on Club 18-30 packages taking advantage of Happy Hours and cheap sangria and retsina.

Francophobia has always been a feature of English life particularly (and I say English rather than British for we Scots have always had closer ties with France than has England) - England is so much closer to France anyway - you can clearly see one from the other most days across the choppy waters of La Manche - and I reckon it's a bit like hating those closest to you - in which L'Entente isn't all that Cordiale much of the time. Anyway, Madame Carla Sarkozy (aka Carla Bruno) simply adores Angleterre and everything Anglais, including our lovely Reine Elizabeth, resplendent in the equally lovely Windsor Castle, but she's actually Italian, not French!

The main "problem" is this - there is undoubtedly quite a wide cultural gap between Les Etats Unis and Le Royaume Uni / L'Europe generally, and this is clearly shown in so many ways. Many European Continentals have constantly accused the UK of adopting too many aspects of the American way of life (which cannot be denied, but hey! you will find a McDonalds anywhere between Helsinki and Athens and Dublin and Bucharest and Lisbon and Warsaw) anyway!) and, of course, of having, or appearing to have, far too close an alliance with the Americans politically (again, this cannot be denied, either now or in the past).

This can partly be explained by the fact that the UK and the USA share a common Language (for the most part), which is bound to make the two countries appear to be a lot closer to each other culturally. That may be true, but even so there are huge differences between the culture and mindset of the UK and the USA. No doubt the citizens of both countries wholeheartedly appreciate that in their own individual ways.....

I forgot to add this bit concerning Americans over here in the UK. Recently (well, last year sometime) I had to do cover a story which involved visiting a hotel here in Edinburgh city centre which caters for British military personnel and their friends/family, and which is linked directly to a similar, and much larger establishment, down in London.

Both establishments have reciprocal arrangements with the military of other countries (mostly European but also including the USA). On the day I went to this hotel here I saw a large group of Americans coming and going in the extensive foyer of this place, all male, all about 20-30 or so, and all very obviously military personnel - you can just tell at a glance, can't you! ;-)

They were all amazingly quiet and well ordered, spoke in low voices, and being excessively polite (by our standards!) to the receptionists behind the desk, and the security guy sitting next to the main entrance. "Thank you, ma'am" and "I sure appreciate that, sir!". That just wouldn't have happened in anything like the same way if all those guys had been British squaddies (a Britslang term for soldiers).

Then I was subsequently told that all those American guys had been specifically instructed to be on their best behaviour while they were over here in the UK and to no way demonstrate any aspects of the so called "ugly American abroad" and also try and tone down the very obvious fact that they were members of the American military!

Damian, in addition to witnessing men under orders, I believe you were also witnessing the cowboy mindset. Cops, military men, etc. all seem to go into cowboy mode the minute you hand them a gun. The quiet, polite, introverted, organized thing they put on my not be at all how they would behave once they are out of the line of duty. It's culture as much as training.

As for the orders, yes, Americans are aware that we're hated abroad, but really, there isn't much we can do about it beyond trying to be as friendly and polite as we can when we leave our boarders. I mean, President Bush didn't win the majority vote when he got into office and we were never offered a choice after that. Vote on the war- I don't think so. Have an opinion on foreign policy- too bad. America is so famous for its democracy, foreigners really don't realize just how limited the average American's involvement is. We're not all war mongering huns, despite popular opinion.

Most Americans that travel abroad are nice and friendly.
Rednecks stay in the fly-over-states and the Bible Belt and they don't travel, they don't have a passport, so they don't travel abroad.

<<It's a source of great frustration to the rest of the world that US presidents are largely elected on the basis of their domestic policy>>

??? It would only make sense that US voters elect their presidents on the basis of mainly domestic policy. After all, that is the bulk of what the president's job consists of. Outsiders may only know him from his foreign policy, but on the whole, that's a minor part of his job -- he's there to serve the domestic audience, not the foreign one.

As for our impact on foreign affairs, that is certainly not something the average individual has any say over, no matter how well-informed or not one may be. As Rene pointed out, neither she nor I will ever be asked to pull a lever on any matters of war, trade, or treaty. Even direct voter referendums are only at the state level, not the federal level, and are mainly found in western states, not across the country.

Nor do any of those matters, foreign or domestic, rest solely in the hands of one elected official -- there are hundreds of people in the legislative branch who do the bulk of that law-making, and can override the president in a majority vote if they so please. And of those people, only a handful would be direct representatives of any one American, and so be someone that they personally may have chosen in an election -- the vast majority will come from other districts or states, and be entirely out of one individual's "control". And voters weigh all manner of options at voting time, most of which will have far more impact on their own lives than the vagaries of foreign policy. You may hate a candidate for some of their views, but agree entirely on others, so you pick the person who most fits your philosophy -- but it will never be an exact match, so simply voting for a person doesn't guarantee that you back ALL of their policies -- be careful of politicians, like Bush, who assume that their election is a "mandate"* from the electorate that endorses EVERY decision they then make -- that's never been true of any politician!

*Mandate: apparently Latin for "they told me to do it!"

<<Rednecks stay in the fly-over-states and the Bible Belt and they don't travel, they don't have a passport, so they don't travel abroad.>>

Rednecks can be nice, friendly, and polite, too.

BTW: My passport's also expired -- don't really need one anymore.

<<And voters weigh all manner of options at voting time>>

There are usually only three realistic options for voters in US elections; Republican, Democrat or a spoilt ballot. But even to take your statement as I imagine you intended, the things they consider are all too often not related to policy. It is an interesting exercise to listen to Americans talking about candidates and noting how often they mention a candidates policy. This doesn't make a good drinking game.

<<It would only make sense that US voters elect their presidents on the basis of mainly domestic policy.>>

Uriel, I think you've missed the point. The problem is that the democratic process has failed here because the American electorate does not take into account foreign policy in any meaningful way. This means that America acts purely in its own interests in this respect. You might say this is reasonable and what almost all countries do, but America lacks an international conscience more than other countries. This has lead to the rise of anti-Americanism in the same sense the Yankies disliked the British in Colonial America. It's a lack of accountability.

I disagree with Hilda that the American electorate can be completely forgiven. Certainly democracy is a compromise and no individual is directly responsible. But democracy is as much a privilege as a right and inaction can be as wrong as action. During the time of slavery, it would have been easy for a resident of Bristol or Liverpool to say, 'I'm not involved in the slave trade so I am not responsible', while these towns profited massively from the trade. The fact that Parliament could stop the trade meant the electorate was responsible, especially if they were aware of what was going on. Fortunately, some individuals did work hard to make that happen, but some responsibility for these things lies with us all.

[It is an interesting exercise to listen to Americans talking about candidates and noting how often they mention a candidates policy. ]

I don't think I understand the significance of this statement. Besides his policies, what else would there be to debate? We vote on a candidate based on what he or she would do for us--for the most part.

-My passport's also expired -- don't really need one anymore. -

U need one to go to Rio.

"I mean, President Bush didn't win the majority vote"

He won a majority of votes where it counts- in the electoral college. Pursuant to the Constitution, the Electoral College elects the President. Each state determines for itself how to designate electors. Currently all states use an election by the populace. 48 states use a winner-take-all system in which the slate of electors receiving the most votes is selected. 2 states (Maine and Nebraska) use a system in which 2 electors are selected statewide and the rest are selected by congressional district.

The matter, though, is that at this point the Constitution, for as much as people reference it, is but a piece of dirty toilet paper. For as much as people talk about it, "democracy" has failed, plain and simple, and at best we are left with choosing between bad and worse. In reality, people have very little choice much of the time in the first place, and the powers that be (you know who I mean) generally do their very best to get people to choose "worse" (as such practically always serves their interests). Honestly, I was just hoping that Bush would actually seize absolute power and end the whole charade already, but clearly they are not dumb enough to make their intentions that obvious here.

<<Uriel, I think you've missed the point. The problem is that the democratic process has failed here because the American electorate does not take into account foreign policy in any meaningful way. This means that America acts purely in its own interests in this respect. You might say this is reasonable and what almost all countries do, but America lacks an international conscience more than other countries. This has lead to the rise of anti-Americanism in the same sense the Yankies disliked the British in Colonial America. It's a lack of accountability. >>

Who exactly would we be accountable to? And in what way to we lack a conscience "more than other countries"?

As for not taking into account foreign policy, how do you know? The first time George Bush ran, he proposed a very mild, low-key approach to foreign policy -- and then did a complete 180 once in office. No one had any idea he would do that, or that events would unfold as they did and allow him the latitude to push through extraordinary policies that would not have been countenanced otherwise. But remember that "compassionate conservative" spiel he was giving back in 2000? Turned out to not be true. But that STATED policy was what voters had to go on!

If you go back to his predecessor, Bill Clinton, we were even hazier on what he would be like on foreign policy, since he was merely a governor of a small, backwoods state, which didn't give him any foreign policy experience at all -- and he ended up doing a great job on the international stage. There is never any way to know ahead of time how a president will react to future events -- or what Congress will allow him to do. The president does not get to make foreign policy decisions all by his little lonesome, regardless of how it may appear to outsiders. He has to cajole over 600 other people into agreeing with him, too. Case in point: Clinton wanted to invade Iraq years ago, and was thwarted by a hostile Republican-controlled Congress. Bush was granted permission to invade by a later Congress that gave him BIpartisan support -- and without their approval there would have been no war in Iraq. And of course, none of this was any part of either man's original presidential campaign, so what would voters have had to go on?

In this election both candidates have talked extensively about their foreign policy visions. How do you know no one is paying any attention? Some people may agree with one, some with the other. How does that translate to being oblivious? Because our tanking economy is also a major preoccupation? Because there are basic ideological clashes between social conservatives and social liberals to sort out as well? We would be crazy to not be paying attention to those things! How can they not be important?

<<Besides his policies, what else would there be to debate?>>

It is all rhetoric. 'Obama will bring about change and lead American forward, McCain appeals to American core values.' It's all said without any reference to something concrete. The hottest topics of debate have been whether or not the candidate is Black, Female, or likely to die in the next four years.

<<Who exactly would we be accountable to? And in what way to we lack a conscience "more than other countries"?>>

I'm not sure in what sense you mean the first question, so I'll answer in the two ways I imagine it. Firstly, in the example I suggested, I meant that the actions of the British government in imposing taxes on the Colonies was not held sufficiently to account by the electorate as the colonials could not directly vote on these issues and companies such as the East India Company held too much sway with the government.

The US government should also be accountable for it's actions, and it is, but only to US citizens. Because Americans don't care too much about foreign policy, the US government is given free reign over its foreign policy and has been pissing other people off for half a century or so, serving its own interests.

The 'lack of conscience' is perhaps harshly worded, but the point is there is no feedback from the electorate to control the power (be that one rich man or 600).

<<The first time George Bush ran, he proposed a very mild, low-key approach to foreign policy -- and then did a complete 180 once in office.>>

But the second time, they knew exactly what to expect and by re-electing him, gave him their approval.