I must stress once again, this is NOT A POLL FOR AMERICANS. The purpose is to determine what's going on in other countries, nor here. If you're an American, please null your vote.


Anyway ...

I was recently reading some Noam Chomsky, and he was talking about how other countries didn't have a concept of hate-of-country like we do in America. I had to admit, I was a bit skeptical, because so-called "Anti-Americanism" is such an integral part of being a part of American society. You have to watch out for people who are "Anti-American;" they're the people that are always criticizing what America's doing. It was "Anti-American" to call for American forces invading South Vietnam to be defeated in their neo-colonial war, because Americans are supposed to "support the troops." It was "Anti-American" to claim that America recklessly attacks countries for dubious reasons, because Americans are supposed to "support the President." It was "Anti-American" to say that 9/11 was a direct consequence of American foreign policy, because anyone who would dare to attack us could never possibly have a reason besides hatred of freedom and peace.


Well, the more I thought about it, the less likely it seemed that other countries would have this concept. I mean, it's just insane to claim that vast swaths of a country's population would hate it for no reason. That just doesn't make sense. If they really hated it so much, they would leave. What "Anti-Americanism" really is is opposition to the current governmental/corporate paradigm; it's just been packaged in a way that it's easy to sell to Americans. And sell it does ...

So, those of you from other countries, do you have your own Rush Limbaughs spouting about how certain people who oppose the government are "Anti-Norweigan" or "Anti-Dutch"? Or do these words, and possibly even these concepts, just not exist?


I must stress once again, this is NOT A POLL FOR AMERICANS. The purpose is to determine what's going on in other countries, nor here. If you're an American, please null your vote.

MOD NOTE: Moved to Casual Conversation. -Jaime

In Australia, I've heard the term "un-Australian". This is commonly used as a term for unethical behaviour. Australians seem to believe fairness and justice are principles firmly planted in Australian heritage and culture. A cheat who takes advantage of others is "un-Australian". Harsh immigration policies? Un-Australian. I'm sure that during the war, some might have also called Australia's involvement un-Australian, but this is rarer. This is because the term is more to do with working-class integrity than the higher realm of politics.

Un-American is very different. It is, to me, something used to call into question the beliefs of anyone not professing blind loyalty to one's current administration.

I voted no, on the grounds that there is no equivalent for "un-American" in Britain. Someone in another thread put their finger on this, I think, in the sense that America is at least as much an idea as a culture or geographic area, and very few other countries are in that position.

"Un-British" is never used, since nobody really thinks of "British" as an ideological standpoint - it's just a description of nationality, culture and (to a lesser extent) race. "Unpatriotic" might be used instead in the same context, but it wouldn't carry the same weight here anyway, since our patriotism is more muted than in the USA, and, increasingly, people think of themselves as British only when compared to foreign countries. More and more, in domestic discourse, the English see themselves as English, Scots as Scottish, Welsh as Welsh, and so on. We only become "British" when we talk to continental Europeans, Americans, etc.

About the only people who still consistently put "British" at or near the top of their list of descriptors are the Unionists in Northern Ireland. And they would, wouldn't they?

Even "anti-British" is a relatively alien concept. Although it is conceivable that foreigners who hate Britain specifically would be called "anti-British", there don't seem to be that many of them, and they are very visible.

Within Britain, I have used "anti-English" used with reference to the constitutional position of England relative to the Celtic countries, and to the treatment of English people that live among the Celts. (Though, naturally, there's no uproar in the London tabloids over the same treatment being meted out to Welsh, Scots or Irish living in England.)

Denmark has a very strong sense of national identity, which most likely comes from the fact that we have one of the oldest surviving nations on the planet. For what ever the reason though, there is a clear sense of proprioty for Danes, and a clear sense of what makes us who we are.
In conversations and debates, the subject often crops up as Danes relate to each other their experiences of other cultures and countries. Since I grew up in England, this is a recurring theme for me, since my being foreign and Danish at the same time provokes quite a bit of fuss...

Not so long ago, the term 'New Dane' was coined to describe the immigrants who have been moving to Denmark, in quite large numbers (and causing some social friction) the intention being to counter the accusation brought on by nationailsts that these immigrants were 'un-Danish' and had no business invading our country.

Over all, this feeling of an alien presence has caused the greatest worries, especially when coupled with the rise in violent, and sexual crimes connected to the youths of immigrants. Usually by young Muslim men, borin in Denmark to immigrant parents, and often referred to as '2nd G's'. ( 2nd Generation immigrants).

So far, there has not been much of a popular back lash against these 'un-Danish' elements, except in the popular vote for the nationalist party.

I voted yes, but agree with Juilian that we do not have references to a lack of patriotism. My point is that although it may not be a defined, national culture - as in the case of America - but there is a sense of democratic despotism and culture of conformity that look down upon certain ideas that are held by the minority - whatever it may be.

Anti-war supporters are not called un-patriotic, though the charge was almost called at the height of the war, but are seen as polemic individuals who are are anti - poltical who aren't actually proposing any solutions. Consequently, these groups are seen as pointlessly argumentative and looked down upon as being annoyances in society who are unable to priortise themselves to the so called important issues, notably asylm, the euro and pensioners - to cite the right.

So whilst it may not be defined negatively in reference to a nation, it is viewed as negative in refernce to a wider, powerful culture of conformity. If anything, is is coined as being anti-state not anti-british.

Belgium certainly has no anti-belgian concept. In general Belgians have little sense of national identity. This has several reasons. For one Belgium is divided into three separate communities, each with their own language. A lot Belgians think of themselves as Flemish or Walloon rather than Belgian.

But even among the more patriotic Belgians there is no anti-Belgian concept. There is no single idea or concept that represents Belgium (or even the Flemish/Walloon community). Personally I think it is a strange idea. Why should you behave or think according to some code to be a good Belgian? How would you define a good Belgian? Belgians certainly don't support the government just because they should or it is "the Belgian thing" to do. Actually objecting to whatever the government decides is more typically Belgian.

It's okay, Rattlesnake, I nulled my vote - despite having lived in Ireland for eighteen years. There is a strong sense of nationalism in the Irish Republic, no doubt due to their long struggle for independence - and their relatively recent acquisition of that independence (not to mention the ongoing question of Northern Ireland). While the term "anti-Irish" is widespread, however, it is never used in reference to the Irish themselves, but to describe external attitudes to the country (most often in characterizing the sentiments of certain elements within the UK, notably the Unionists).

There is a term, though, which is sometimes used to question one's patriotism or "loyalty" (though it's as often used to indicate an adherence to colonial class distinctions or a level of snobbery or affectation): West Brit. This is not an epithet which any die-hard Republican wants to have levelled at them.

Although I think there USED to be a sense of "un-British" behaviour - the sense of 'fair play' or ' keeping a stiff upper lip'......all passe now, but in our empire days, there was a definite sense of 'Britishness', I think it largely gave British administrators something to do whilst far away from home in a foreign country.

I have lived in England for a while and there I noticed that people would refer to almost 'un-British' behaviour - but in a humourous way, if someone complained about something too much or if something was blatantly unfair, it might be called 'not very British' -but in a very tongue-in-cheek sort of way.

Julian I think I wrote something along the lines of the thread you are referring to, but can't find it in the morass of posts on this site....anyone know how to track old posts? Excuse my arrogant assumption that anyone would be interested in reading it - its a very un-British way to behave....

All people who live in the UK will probably consider themselves to have two identites: British and whichever country within the UK they live in. This is regardless of whether they are unionist or strive for independence from the UK: England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all have their own national identities and, to some extent, social ideologies as well. It could even be argued that different regions of England have their own identities, for example those from the North East who come from very different backgrounds than those from the South East, or Cornwall and its Celtic past.

Speaking as a Brit, I have never encountered any concept similar to 'Anti-American'. I've witnessed people being abused and attacked for protesting against our governments actions, but protesting has never been called 'Anti-British'. As some have said, patriotism has been called into question. But I, like many others I know, believe that a true British patriot will always question the actions of their government if they believe them to be incorrect. In my opinion, if you think patriotism means voting once every 5 years then sitting back and letting them do what they want, then you are showing no love for your country. I love being British, and I will contest our leaders whenever I think they are leading our nation astray.

I feel a stronger link to my national identity as a Scot than a Brit. We have our own legal and education systems, our own capital city, our own national and royal flags, our own sports teams, a recognisable national dress, our own parliament and a long history. I am not a supporter of independence, but I am patriotic of my Scottish heritage, perhaps to a greater extent than my British identity. There is no term 'anti-scottish', but there are a number of people from my country who feel a strong patriotic sense of duty to Scotland who may consider those who forget our identity to be un-scottish, if there is such a thing.

Generally, I would say Brits (and Scots) are not phased by criticism of their leaders or their way of life. Certainly, if someone from my country was to criticise our democracy and social structure, I would defend it. But I wouldn't call them anti-British/Scottish. The whole concept of our society is that anyone is entitled to their opinion and their right to express their views. Anyone who brands someone as un/anti (which essentialy beens 'not') British/Scottish because they have different opinions are the people who are really harming our way of life. These are the people who are detached from what our nation stands for.