We've had threads over the years that dicuss the causes and the effects of anti-Americanism.

But as far as I can remember (and as far as I can search in the archive) we've never really discussed what constitutes anti-Americanism and why it is a bad thing.

America itself might well be a good thing. Actively carrying out, instigating, or plotting physical attacks on America or Americans - where ever it comes from ("foreign or domestic") - would be thought of by most civilised people as a bad thing. Clearly any definition of anti-Americanism would have to include such things.

But is mere opposition to, disagreement with, or simply making fun of one or more American policies, or habits, or characterisitcs.... if it falls short of causing any real damage to people or property, is THAT also anti-Americanism? Is it even a bad thing?

How do you define anti-Americanism?

Does it change depending on circumstances (e.g. is it different now America is "at war", at least according to the current administration?), or subject (e.g. is it worse to criticise soldiers or teachers, or just as bad if the target is either?)?

Where does legitimate criticism, or plain making fun (e.g. satire), end, and anti-Americanism begin?

How do you define anti-Americanism?

When I hear the term "anti-American" I think of people who, without much forethought, dismiss the United States as being in the wrong. There are those that feel that it is American foreign policy that causes famine in Africa, or that Americans are hell bent on hegemony and world domination.

These anti-American types feel that the US is responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda, usually citing its funding of the Afghani mujahideen.

This anti-Americanism seems more angry than reasoned. It seems knee-jerk rather than intellectual. But maybe that's just my (mis-)perception.

You can certainly disagree with US policy and not be anti-American by my definition. However, if you can find no redeeming qualities of the US government or Americans in general, than you are anti-American.

I'm not sure about where satire ends, and where anti-American sentiment begins, but I believe to address the nature of your post, I believe that neutrality is impossible. Not making a choice is, in essence, making a choice in itself.

Basically, I believe that most Americans are neither internationally traveled nor privy to true international opinion. We often garner our ideas as to how the outside world views us from the media... which often is simply reflective of those whom chose to run the story.

Anti-American sentiment, in Mexico for instance, is probably far more difficult to find than in Paris. However, in my personal travels (both post and prior to the Bush admin), this has always rarely been the case. There may be subtle contempt, but generally people aren't audaciously rude or impolite.

I believe that it has little to do (but partially) with the current administration and the war, but more with American bravado often being confused with arrogance. Americans are habitually taught independence, self-reliance, etc. This permeates all portions of our society and often builds a culture that transcends race and gender. We rarely speak other languages, are rarely interested or educated in other cultures, and often revel in this fact. This is hard for the rest of the Western World to understand, as their history is intertwined like a rope, dependent upon the history of each other. The share common languages, borders, and to a certain degree cultures. This isn't our case at all... and hence our intellectual indifference.

It doesn't help that we're the only superpower left, the American dollar (as weak as it may be or not) is still an acceptable currency worldwide, our jeans and beers are in stores internationally, and we truly believe that we're the best at whatever we do (as a whole).

I personally believe that true Anti-American sentiment manifests when people take anti-American action... i.e. the Taliban... Europeans with hard feelings often change their tune at the sight of American tourists ready to spend money, as is the case with US business investment, etc

How do you define anti-Americanism?

Usually I don't. I am not really sure its a useful term and its a term that seems to belong specifically to a nationalist perspective. In Denmark there is a similar term; udansk, which translates to un-danish.

For the most part, this word is used to described people who act or call out against basic human rights or who resort to using violence. Its not a term we use to describe people who merely disagree with us, and hardly ever used to describe anyone who isn't Danish.

I get accused of being 'anti-American' every so often (not as much as I used to though) and I find it puzzling since I'm not American. I conclude that in America the term anti-American can be used to describe any one who attacks the nationalist idea of America.

This conclusion I base on the fact that those people who tend to level such an accusation against me are often conservatives of the ardent variety... the sort of people I imagine have a profound fondness for flags*


Does it change depending on circumstances (e.g. is it different now America is "at war", at least according to the current administration?), or subject (e.g. is it worse to criticise soldiers or teachers, or just as bad if the target is either?)?

I think there are some people in the USA who are always 'at war'. For these people, the accusation of being anti American is akin to levelling an accusation of treason or of declaring some one to be an enemy.


Where does legitimate criticism, or plain making fun (e.g. satire), end, and anti-Americanism begin?

When people stop laughing?


* I like our flag as well, don't get me wrong, but I don't use it to drape my walls with.

Where does legitimate criticism, or plain making fun (e.g. satire), end, and anti-Americanism begin?
Here is an example of anti-Americanism. Not to pick on the UK, just the first example I could think of.

An American in London


In some cases anti-Americanism in Europe dove-tails with anti-Semitism.




My experience living in europe gave me 10 memories of "pro-Americanism" for every example of "anti-Americanism," so don't get me wrong.

But it is pretty scary to experience. I'd say that the current anti-americanism in Europe is the closest thing a white guy can every come to feeling racism. There were times when someone heard my accent and just started flinging invective at me about "cowboy Bush" and "destroying the environment" etc. etc. etc. When I'd reply with cool facts about how the EU aren't even coming close to Kyoto targets, or that George Galloway is a liar and thief, it only got worse. It was just pure hatred and no logic.

I'd say that it hinges on intent. If someone is criticising the US for legitimate wrongs, or even semi-illegitimate ones (such as famine in Africa), and can support their statements with logic, cites, etc, then I do not consider it anti-Americanism. I am an American and can be exceedingly critical of our government, yet I am very much not anti-American.

If someone is attacking America, and more importantly actual Americans, based on emotion (such as the anecdote above), then I would call it anti-Americanism. As to the use and meaning of that term, I would equate it to anti-semitism or any other term used to decribe bigotry, in this particular context.

Regarding Americans not being internationally travelled, I am always forced to wonder if people making those comments have ever looked at a globe. I lived in Germany for seven years as a youth. International travel could be accomplished by somewhat more than an hour's drive. Where I am currently, to reach another country, I'd be on the road for some 12-14 hours minimum. The USA is large, really large. The couple of times when European friends have visited, they've always talked about how big it all is. I can relate to that, as I said, I was about an hour from the border in Germany. It simply is not all that easy for us to travel internationally. That said, it has been my experience that Europeans are still far more likely to hop a plane and cross an ocean than we are.

As to actually experiencing anti-Americanism, I have. As I said, I spent a total of seven years in Germany, half in the early 70's and the other in the mid-80's. Anti-Americanism was alive and well in West Germany (as it was West then). I've had a knife pulled on me, been yelled at, spit at, and worse, all for being an American. Other places we visited, not so anti-American. The UK and Switzerland were positively delightful towards us, and I had excellent experiences in Belgium and Italy too. France, not so much, though the people in the countryside were lovely and warm.

It has been 20 years, and much has changed. I'd love to go back, even given the attitudes shown on message boards. The point to my anecdote, however, was to say that it existed then too. I tend to view the term anti-Americanism much like I do rascism and porn - I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it.

Carlitoswhey's post prompts me to add two points: The first being that whilst I feel sorry for the American woman on the bus (and had I been there I would not have sat idly by and allowed her to be molested thus) I cannot say I am surprised by the account.

More and more the USA is being isolated by the same gap that once led to the decapitation of a certain French King and his nobility, that of extreme wealth and power on the one hand, and hopeless poverty on the other.

Of course, precious few people in Europe are starving but the feeling of despair, and thus, anger and hatred, is growing ever stronger as the people of the USA continue to support politicians and policies whose goals appear to be continued American dominance and prosperity, cost what it will for the rest of the planet.

I'm not saying any one else is better... only that wealth always attracts envy, anger and eventually theft. Most of the the third world probably looks at Europe in much of the same way.


Which brings me to my second point. Carlitoswhey's quote made this point:

There is an equally virulent perception in the USA against Europe as there is in Europe against the USA, and blanket statements against Europe, or 'Euro agenda's' are common fare when debating Americans. Its not a one way street

The Holocaust is frequently referred to as 'European', as if all Europe were some how complicit in that crime and anti semitism or participation by Americans in the Nazi cause never took place. Its almost as if the USA has not conducted its own forms of Holocaust against native American people's and slavery is just not politically important to enough to consider when Americans decide to rage on about the Holocaust and Israel.

I often, even here at AD, meet the unusual perception that Europe is somehow opposed to Israel. I'm often rebuked on 'European anti semitism' as if this were the norm in Europe when it is in fact very rare and pales to meager insignificance besides the vast and growing problem of Islamophobia in Europe. It appears, to me, that there is a perception, aggressively fostered in the USA by supporters of Israel (call them what you will) that seeks to promote the Israeli cause by portraying Jews (read Israel) as an under dog to European anti semitism... when in fact Europe is Israel's biggest trading partner and European commerce is Israel's number one source of income.

Anti American sentiments certainly exist in Europe but so also do anti European sentiments exist in the USA and on both sides of the Atlantic there are those who seek to capitalise on such hatred and division.

There is a stark difference however, in that the USA is a single nation and Europe is not.

...at least not yet.




editted for spelling

How do you define anti-Americanism?

Anti-Americanism is very hard to define, mostly due to the fact that there is no "offical" way to be Anti-American. I define it as "opposing American values and policies." I know this definition lacks a lot but this is the most general definition I was able to come up with.

America is the sole superpower now and probably will probably continue to be in the next 10-20 years. It is inevitable that a lot of people will hate America solely because of this. However, this is not the only cause of Anti-Americanism. A lot of people blame America for many other reasons. Here are some that the people in my country (Turkey) find bad/evil in America:

- American dream is corrupted over the years and has become the act of worshipping money and power. Moral values have diminished in America.

- America is acting wars of agression and killing thousands of innocent civilians. (Especially the air raids in Bagdat and the "peace keeping" operations in Fallujah)

- Americans talk of democracy but all they mean is a free market to sell American products. They will not stop until there is a McDonalds on every corner of the world.

- America talks about disarmament and WMDs in wrong hands but America spends more than any other country in the world for conventional and mass destruction weapons. America's military spenditure is 43% of the entire world spenditure in weapons. This is almost as much as rest of the world put together. (Proof: http://www.globalissues.com/Geopolitics/Ar...e/Spending.asp)

1) Anti-Americanism as being against what one believes to be American. The reason you get such differing views of what constitutes anti-Americanism is because people define America differently.

For example, some consider America's foreign and domestic policies as a necessary component of their definition of American. By that definition, one who disagrees with those policies is anti-American.

Looking at the current state of political discourse and the abundance of accusations of being unpatriotic and anti-american I think many people unfortunately take stock in that definition of American (and by expension anti-americanism). I find that defintion problematic in that it deems anyone advocating change from current policy as anti-American. By that definition, the women's suffrage and civil rights movements should be classified as anti-american.

Others see the presidential administration as necessarily americanesque, which would by definition rule any stances contradictory to the positions of the administration as anti-american. People seem to be doing this a lot lately, as well.

Some associate a particular culture with americanism: fast food, vulgar music, ignorance, arrogance, and debauchery. They tend to classify themselves as anti-american because their definition of american is based on that perception of our culture.

The necessary components of my definition of american include the governmental ideals outlined in the preamble to the declaration of independence.
preamble link
My definition allows for american policies to be anti-american, which is inherently impossible according other definitions. It also allows for people who advocate change to not be deemed as anti-american, which i think is important.

2)My definition doesn't really change with circumstances, the others I listed tend to, because administrations and policies always change.

In regards to military criticism, I feel it is improper to criticize soldiers for the circumstances of where, when, and how they are deployed. Those criticisms should be leveled at the ones that make those decisions.

How do you define Anti-Americanism?

Hatred of Americans and/or all things American. Pure and simple. Fed primarily by ignorance and fear. And it makes being an American a scary thing more and more if you are outside the physical boundaries of the United States.


Does it change depending on circumstances (e.g. is it different now America is "at war", at least according to the current administration?), or subject (e.g. is it worse to criticise soldiers or teachers, or just as bad if the target is either?)?

I don't think the definition changes....although the degree and the frequency to which it occurs DOES depend on circumstances or subject.

Where does legitimate criticism, or plain making fun (e.g. satire), end, and anti-Americanism begin?

I like Amlord's answer....



I would only add that I wish the world would be more willing to give us the benefit of the doubt. Instead of assuming that America and Americans have the worst intentions and/or are only interested in our own best interests that they dig a little deeper. Americans are by and large a good generous people and we ARE interested in doing the right thing. This despite the desire to "open a McDonalds on every street corner in the world" as some would lead you to believe. To be honest, most americans I know are too involved in keeping a roof over their own heads and paying for their kids education to be much concerned that Istanbul just opened its 3rd McDonalds this year...

I really like Amlord's comment on this, and I would have to agree that anti-Americanism is a position where a person believes America is in the wrong in any and every situation. There is the old saying about "my country right or wrong" but I'd argue that the anti-American's slogan would be "my country always wrong." Again, Amlord's comment regarding always assuming the worst in American foreign and domestic policy would be of paramount importance in trying to analyze what constitutes anti-Americanism.



To me, it's a question of intent. You are not anti-American if you mock the president for not being *smart* enough to differentiate between good intelligence and faulty intelligence. However, you are anti-American if you believe that president Bush is out to rule the world and to create misery for as many people as he humanly can.

This is a fair statement, and true. But it is very hard for someone who watches something they hold dear being destroyed or challenged (through economic, political, or military means) by American interests to understand how someone could vote and select their own government and at the same time regard the actions as seperate and distinct.

Now I'm not excusing anti-Americanism by any stretch. My cousin Shlomit is coming to visit from New York in a few days... every time she's here she goes on some sort of diatribe and ends up personifying the "ugly American." As much as I hate that, it bothers me even more when my grandmother chastises her grandson (not me) for moving to the United States, (Of course, her explanation "they have too many toilets to sit on" was as bizarre as it was maddening) or my parents make the same sort of anti-American generalizations that we chastise Americans for making about other peoples.

However, the fact remains that we reap what we sow. That goes for everyone... For good or ill, America casts unmatched seeds of political, economic, and military influence. And the achilles heel of democracy is that the people do shoulder some responsibility for the actions of their government. As long as the U.S. casts as wide a net as they do, it is insufficient to depend on people to give America "the benefit of the doubt." When the Indonesian or French government (or a major business concern) makes a decision it is not likely to affect the daily lives of Americans, but American political and economic actions have very real and strong impacts upon those same people when the situation is reversed. It is easy to suggest that intent is critical, but when my friends lose their jobs and can't work because of illegal tarriffs imposed by the United States, the intention of said government is largely irrelevant.

Where I draw the line between anti-americanism and legitimate criticism is simple though, regardless of how complicated the underlying issue is. In this issue, and all others, I make an honest concerted effort to know what I am talking about. If someone is informed to the best of their ability on an issue, and their criticism is a rational response, then how can it be anything other than legitimate? That's not to say it's correct mind you.

Hey, why not consult Webster's?

an·ti-A·mer·i·can adj.
1. opposed or hostile to the United States of America, its people, its principles, or its policies.
–n.
2. an anti-American person.
[1765–75, Amer., in sense “anticolonial”; ANTI- + AMERICAN]
n.

So the term has broad possibilities, doesn't it. One can be hostile or opposed, or I suppose both. The connotation isn't part of the definition, but we all know it is used most often as an insult, like a dirty word. It questions patriotism along with loyalty, and a physical act equalling the emotional impact is a slap to the face.

At least this connotation holds up among US citizens. Other nationals probably don't take offense. However, with such a broad definition, the term does not stand alone. It needs context.

If a fellow citizen pitches this hardball at me, I feel it is my inalienable right to swing the bat and send the sucker right back in my fellow citizen's face. Let's just say that the use of this term is never an attempt at civil discourse.

I also find it interesting that anti-tax, anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-environment and a bunch of anti-types are hardly ever termed anti-American, even though the term technically fits.

Finally, for those who insist on using this term, please learn how to spell it.

I really like the ideas mentioned in the first paragraph. Doing some soul-searching and finding the root causes of why others hate us and why they are willing to go to such a great extent to end their own lives to kill our soldiers and citizens is hardly "anti-American." It's trying to find an easier way that would perhaps save more lives and not sap the strength of our economy. I also really like what has been posted in the second paragraph. Once again, it's a matter of intent. If a person researches both sides of the issue on Iraq and comes up with a different view than the president, then yes, they are acting in the responsible role of a citizen. The difference between that and an anti-American individual is that the latter looks at no information and acts merely to hurt America's interests for hte sake and purpose of doing so.

It's relative. 'Anti-Americanism' is usually, in my case, synonymous with 'disagreement over policies'. It goes to ridiculous proportions. Once when I verbally condemned the US murdering innocent Iraqi civilians, I was told I was in fact Anti-American and my 'hatred for the US' spurs me on to criticize them. Then I've been asked what Hussein is like in bed. Silly non-responsive braindead drones never impress me.

I think Amlord's idea that anti-Americanism (or anti-anyoneism) tends to start with an inability to see redeeming qualities in the government or it's citizens (or to always ascribe the most nefarious of motivations to acts and opinions open to many interpretations) is a good start. I feel I'm experiencing "anti-Americanism" when faced with the following:

-A tendency to compare a nuanced view of non-Americans with a caricatured view of Americans (example: "Sure, here in Bavaria some folks are very provincial but many of our folks make an effort to understand world events, not like the US where even your so-called intellectuals have no interest beyond the US borders and know nothing of life outside the US)
-A tendency to demonize or mythologize ("All you Americans want is to conquer the world", "Everyone knows that in America, big business rules the world and you need to oppress the rest of the world to keep your own poor at bay")
-Expressions or behaviour that in content or type is overly personal (coming to my table in a restaurant to express your opinions about my government or ignorance because you heard me order in English or with American accented native language; grabbing, shaking, threatening; expressing your desire to see me and my countrymen hurt or brought low as a 'lesson', etc)
-Obvious double standards (Only America has ever looked to it's own interests before the interests of other countries, Only America has racial, social or economic problems)

We can disagree on everything from politics to religion without it being a bad thing, but as the tendencies above (either towards Americans or on the part of Americans towards others) seem to me to be harmful (if impossible to change or curtail).

I think most feelings of this sort are somewhat circumstantial (if not downright cyclical)-times of disagreement exacerbate and expand feeling but I believe that some level of Anti-American feeling always exists in some people.

(As a side note, all of the above parenthetical examples have been experienced by me or by American colleagues during my last few years living in The Netherlands, Germany and the UK, but I hasten to add that such incidents are very rare and most folks are nothing but friendly and quite indifferent to my country of origin. I also acknowledge that there re equally anti-other feelings in the US, I'm simply addressing the topic put forward by Julian).

How do you define anti-Americanism?

It depends on how the term is used. There are foreigners who can generally be described as anti-American, such as al Qaeda, because they have defined themselves to be that way.

But the term is mostly used as a crutch for people who don’t have a logical argument to describe other Americans, so they rely on emotional terms such as “anti-American” to shut the opponent up. If you can’t debate logically, you rely childish temper tantrums and emotional outbursts, and how do I respond to that logically? I can’t

This kind of blind nationalism was used in totalitarian societies such as Nazi Germany to define loyalties to the ruling party “Good German vs. Bad German”. Of course if you disagreed with Hitler, you’re a “bad German” and you were crushed. Thank god we live in a free society won by "anti-British" British colonists or there’d be a lot of people in jail right now.

Does it change depending on circumstances (e.g. is it different now America is "at war", at least according to the current administration?), or subject (e.g. is it worse to criticise soldiers or teachers, or just as bad if the target is either?)?

I think it’s a fallacy in all circumstances to apply this term to people who criticize US government policy. The US is a democracy that supposedly relies on an exchange of ideas. US govt policy does not always (some would argue that it hardly ever) reflect the opinions of the majority of American people. We are not a totalitarian state, thus we don't have a monolithic opinon. For example, if you disagreed with Clinton’s NAFTA policy, does that mean you hate the country?



Where does legitimate criticism, or plain making fun (e.g. satire), end, and anti-Americanism begin?

I think it becomes illegitimate when someone relies on a “good vs. evil” religious or nationalist emotional propaganda model to rile them up, such as bin Laden is doing. Legitimacy always relies on logic rather than emotion.

If somebody wants to hate all Americans, then what can you do with them? Nothing but leave them with their illogical outbursts. But criticizing elite US policy is an entirely different thing.

Firstly, let me respond to the quotation made early in the thread about the American woman reduced to tears on the bus. While this was horrific, and the perpetrators should be punished, let us not think that it is an incident isolated to Europeans against Americans.

A quick search on the web will reveal phisical attacks, vandalism, death threats, arson and other crimes committed in the United States against French speakers, french tourists and even business with French sounding names, mostly back in 2002-2003.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/21/...ain545004.shtml

Thre stores of 'French Cleaners' (which is just a name, they are not even French) hit by arson.

The US Media has assaulted France with constant and unceasing abuse and insult, in July of 2005 a FOXNews commentator hoped that Paris would win their olympic bid so that terrorists would blow up paris.

There also exist vast an unreasonable steriotypes about France, some of which continue on this board. How many times have we heard repeated here how the French government was 'bought' by Iraq, or how 'corrupt' they are.

All this despite the fact that there has ben no solid link between the Oil for Food scandal and the French government, AND Ithe fact that the US Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations determined that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. US businesses such as BayOil, Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. El Paso Corp and Oilexco.



OK, I know this is all a bit of an aside, I certainly do not want to derail this thread into another oil-for-food, but I think it is very on point to mention that SOME of the Anti-Americanism in Europe recently may be caused entirely in RESPONSE to rabid and unpleasant setiment anti-other in parts of the United States itself.



Secondly, I think the issue of Anti-Americanism needs to be sub-divided. I would posit that in Europe, the vast proportion of Anti-Americanism in the last few years is NOT anti-Americanism at all, it is Anti-Bush Jr.-ism. The US was exceedingly popular in Europe under Clinton, and it has been in the past before that. One cannot look at current trends without comparing them to trends just 8 years ago, which were quite the opposite. Clinton in fact was the US President with highest peacetime popularity in Asia, Africa, Russia and Europe. It is not some phantom 'America' that people do not like, it is the form and actions of its current leader, Bush Jr.

How do you define anti-Americanism?

A dislike of America or its people based on some sort of stereotype you have about ALL American people.

Does it change depending on circumstances (e.g. is it different now America is "at war", at least according to the current administration?), or subject (e.g. is it worse to criticise soldiers or teachers, or just as bad if the target is either?)?

At one time, America was loved and respected, but not anymore. It has changed because of the perception that we are at war for empire or in the case as I believe it, money.

Where does legitimate criticism, or plain making fun (e.g. satire), end, and anti-Americanism begin?

When there is true hatred of America behind it.

I would define anti-Americanism as a shallow, knee-jerk reaction to what many people see as injustice in the world. I think the best way to identify it would be to let individuals self-identify. I think most people whom the majority regard as "anti-American" would gladly label themselves such.

The attitude is shallow, because it presumes much. It presumes that America is a "democracy", that Americans have control over foreign policy, and that Americans want their elected officials to be in office. But believing those things is tantamount to believing that Iraqis are wicked people because they allowed a man like Saddam Hussein to remain in power, instead of deposing him.

The problem is that America is not a democracy, but rather an oligo-plutocracy (I think I just invented that term). We have about as much choice in national leadership as someone ordering a happy meal at McDonald's ("You want fries with that?"). Our national leaders are all cut from the same cloth and dance from the same strings. America was just as oppressive under Clinton as it was under Bush. We bombed Yugoslavia back to the stone age. We bombed the Chinese embassy. We bombed Somalia. We bombed Sudan. Under Clinton, who didn't we bomb? People were still dying in Africa under the Clinton administration. But did anyone care? No, because Clinton protested the Vietnam war from Russia and studied at Oxford. Clinton was, in his own way, anti-American. And yet, mysteriously, the Clintons knew the Bushes well before any Presidential races. Money breeds money, and I defy any anti-Americans to field a candidate of their liking that can make America into something the world can respect. It can't be done.

The problem with anti-American sentiment is that it is as much a knee-jerk reaction as racism. It equates the whole with the actions of a few. It is prejudicial in the most extreme way possible. Some like to cite the fact that America gives the least foreign aid as a proportion of its GDP of any country. This is used to blame Americans for being greedy, but it overlooks an important distinction. It is the US government that is stingy with the foreign aid. When you look at private contributions, a whole different picture emerges. And what is that picture? That America has a corrupt government ruling a surprisingly generous population, while other countries have generous governments ruling a compulsarily generous population that give from their taxes, rather than their checkbooks.

And that is the whole problem with anti-Americanism. Most Americans are good, decent people. At least if they're poor to middle-class. Many of them have simple-minded prejudices against the French, Arabs, Muslims, etc. But if you can convince them that you're a friend and not an enemy, you'll find your average American would give you the shirt off his back as readily as the average citizen of any other decent country. And when it comes to helping others, I dare say that private citizens in America can be quite generous.

Many Americans have their reservations about Iraq, about Afghanistan, even about 9/11. But what anti-Americans totally miss is that Americans can be as much a victim of the government as foreigners. Yes, we try to show up at the polls on election day; but when the ticket lists two devils, how do you choose the lesser evil? And won't you be blamed either way? It's really about respect. Clinton was popular because he was charming and had the social graces to be respectful to other foreign leaders. Bush is unpopular because he has the social grace of a Texas cowboy.

In my mind, criticism crosses over into anti-Americanism when the accuser blames individual Americans for the government in power. Anyone who believes we elect the President should study the Electoral College and ask why such an institution was ever created.

How do you define anti-Americanism?

Straightforward would be to define it as opposing America / American policy / American values, but there are some important differences in the degree of opposition, as I see it:

1. There's the burning hatred among al qaeda supporters and radical muslims. This is real and extreme anti-americanism. Nothing that the US does will change these peoples' opinion and they will remain intent on America's destruction.

2. anti-Americanism in Europe. This is different from the extreme hatred I described above. Most Europeans don't hate America or America's values. What a lot of Europeans oppose is America's foreign policy and the perceived arrogance and hypocrisy of the US. Many Europeans see the US as spouting propaganda about freedom en democracy and then ignoring all those values to serve their own self-interests at the cost of others. These ideas are not new, Europeans have had a certain mild dislike for american policy and/or habits for a long time. I think similar feelings have probably always existed in the US as well. Until recently these feelings were confined to a mild dislike of certain aspects of America and a lot of bad jokes. Recent events have shifted public opinion, however, and many Europeans now seem to have a certain measure of "true" anti-americanism in that they oppose/dislike things simply because they are American. This is of course regrettable, but I think we're still a long way off from a real hatred of the US.

Does it change depending on circumstances (e.g. is it different now America is "at war", at least according to the current administration?), or subject (e.g. is it worse to criticise soldiers or teachers, or just as bad if the target is either?)?

I don't think the definition changes, but the nature of anti-american feelings in Europe seems to have changed somewhat. More and more Europeans seem and stop making the difference between disliking American policies and disliking Americans in general.

Like I said above, I think anti-american feelings are on the rise in Europe. This is due to recent events and G. Bush certainly plays his part in it. Bush is seen as representing a lot of things that Europeans dislike or even fear:

- pursuing American interests with little regard for anything else
- abuse of the US military dominance
- a foreign policy that disregards the opinions of the rest of the world
- religious extremism
- putting corporate interests above human and environmental concerns

A second thing is the whole War on terror/Iraq debacle. A lot of Europeans opposed the invasion of Iraq and thought Europe had valid objections to the invasion(probably rightly so as it seems now). When it became clear that a lot of Europe opposed the invasion, it seemed that we got a lot of hostility from the US:

- There were threats from the US government: Closing US millitary bases, withholding financial support, ending trade agreements. For instance in Belgium there were threats of closing the NATO headquarters and moving it to a "more friendly" state. These measures would all have been disasters for local economies and a lot of people felt the US played dirty to suppress valid criticism.

- The anti-European propaganda. (I wasn't in the US at the time, so I don't know if this was blown out of proportion by European media. ) A lot of Europeans felt like there was widespread hostility and anti-Europeanism among Americans. There were the bad European/French coward jokes, the ridiculous Freedom fries idea, several harsh anti-European statements from politicians. I guess this works both ways and anti-the-other-guy feelings increased on both sides as the other side was seen to react with hostility.

I think these events helped polarize the European view of the US. Anti-american feelings shifted from possibly valid criticism to actual opposing of all things American. I'd like to say that most Europeans can still make the difference between American policy, and American citizens, but as the incident described by Carlitosway shows, this is not always the case. I'm afraid that many Europeans are angry that Americans still support their government, or refuse to object to its policies.


Where does legitimate criticism, or plain making fun (e.g. satire), end, and anti-Americanism begin?

Like AMLord said: the moment people oppose something just because it is America doing it. This is the attitude that has become more and more prevalent in Europe. Every time US policy comes in the news, some people suspect it of having hidden motives. While not really harmful to America, this view is certainly unproductive and one can only hope that it doesn't go any further.