I dunno, that's a bit mixed up. First off, I think the thing to do is realise the very difference you mentioned when people are criticising 'Americans'. There sems to be an odd patriotism over there whereby people, even those who strongly oppose the establishment's actions find it hard to criticise 'America'. I don't think that exists so much over here, we'll happily criticse Britain or England (in my case) or whatever. I can be part of what I'm criticising whether willingly or not.
And next off... it's fair enough to express disagreement with America's actions and create this seperation. But if you're not doing anything (I don't mean you persoally) to ... heh ... foster regime change, then that disagreement is fairly empty isn't it?
Which leads to the end bit, where the author mentions that Bush was elected without a simple majority of the vote and calling for all pro war congresspersons to be removed. And... Bush (and those people) were voted back in with a majority. So given that a majority of those who had an opinion supported Bush knowing exactly what his agenda was, doesn't that mean that, even on the authors own terms, America and Americans are as one in this?
"As individuals, Americans are generally well-liked, at least that's what most of them report after travelling to other countries."
Not... a great argument. Toursist are treated well in places whose economy depends on tourism. Especially tourists from rich countries.
My opnion is that, on the whole and in a general sense, Americans are not particularly well regarded elsewhere. Whether right or wrong there's no point in ignoring that, if true.
"Americans believe in democracy and the value of majority rule."
If that's the case then I disagree with Americans.
"Americans disdain violence and support the rule of law"
An oxymoron to me.
"Americans believe in helping the weak and less advantaged"
There is, on the whole, absolutely no evidence of this. Quite the opposite. Even within your own country with its huge wealth gap.
I do see your point and some sensitivity is warranted but I don't think that article makes it very well at all.
I wish I could argue with you there, but I agree with you on just about all points.
Although I thought majority did not vote Bush again (except by deceit), just electoral, but I couldnt be bothered to look it up at the mo.
Also, to be fair, the Democrats were being asked to vote for the most Liberal Democrat we've had in at least our lifetimes.
I keep thinking the author must live in my town (or in this part of the country) since most people here are like he seems to be and/or they are like me. Hes obviously not from the deep south.
Didn't he say that he wouldn't?
No, really, I'm asking. I thought his policies were "same as Bush but I'd do 'em better."
No, I don't think Kerry was saying that at all.
But I don't expect you to be fully aware of the intricacies of US politics. There are a lot of things about it that I'd expect people who don't live here wouldn't understand...never mind that half the people here don't understand them.
You could probably say that about most countries, really.
Well, supposedly, but the whole Electoral College thing has gotten in the way...I think the founders did not foresee the population explosion or the invention of the television and its evil usages.
This reminds me of a question in my philosophy class...Is man basically good or basically evil? A bit of both, really, was probably my answer.
I once sat a mock philosophy exam with a similar question.
My answer was that "Man is 'fneeg', where 'fneeg' has a meaning that an individual assigns based on how fneeg he or she is."
I don't know what my grade was; apparently philosophy teachers don't much like it when sixth formers who aren't taking philosophy (and indeed are studying at a different school) turn up and take mock exams. :-$