posted February 03, 2007 09:51 PM              

Vladimir Shlapentokh

Following the events of September 11, anti-Americanism in Russia did not subside, but intensified, largely due to what Russians see as widening military and economic gaps between the two countries. The Russian people, particularly elites, have never been more aware of their country’s lagging international status. In this new historical context, “envy” has become one of the primary factors that shape Russian attitudes toward America. In view of the total indifference of the elites to the plight of their country, it is difficult to claim that their hatred of the U.S. is the result of the relatively minor conflicts and cultural differences between the two countries. Though these factors also play a role, envy is the main catalyst of the Russian elites’ increasingly anti-American sentiments.
Avoiding the subject of envy

The role of envy in the development of attitudes toward the United States has been largely ignored by both foreign experts as well as American social scientists and public figures who avoid the concept in their analysis of various social issues. Even in their approach to conflicts predicated on social inequality, they reduce the study of envy to interpersonal relations.

Meanwhile, the predisposition of envy is deeply ingrained in the human mind. The behavior of people, groups and even nations is often influenced by envy. Privately, most people recognize its important role in their lives—the ancient Greeks ascribed envy even to their gods—but in the public sphere, they generally avoid debates on this mean and unpolitically correct issue.

For the most part, the exploration of envy has been confined to the arts and humanities. Shakespear’s Othello and Julius Caesar presented envy as one of the most powerful motivations of human behavior. The poem Mozart and Salieri, written by the most famous Russian poet Alexander Pushkin, was indeed devoted to envy. Other authors who made themselves famous for their works on envy include Herman Melville (Billy Budd 1924), Soviet writer Yuri Olesha (Envy 1927) and more recently, the shrewd observer of American life Tom Wolfe (The bonfire of the vanities 1987, and A man in full 1998).

Envy has an universally negative meaning and is almost never acknowledged by those who bear it. In all cultures, people try to substitute their envious motives with decent ones, such as the pursuit of justice or fairness. In this way, the object of envy quickly becomes an object of injustice. For envious Russians, rather than confessing their feelings, they construct various justifications for their anti-American sentiments, often focusing on unfair U.S. policies toward Russia.
Black and white envy in Russia

The degree of envy depends on the proximity of the two actors in an envious relationship. The closer and more connected people are the more they share the same values, which makes the potential for envy greater. For this reason, in the past, when communication between nations (as well as between different classes in the same society) was limited, the volume of envy in society was rather low. During the Soviet period, for instance, the comparison between Russia and the United States had little affect, because the people were cut off from the Western world.

Over the last decade, advancements in technology, the radical jump in communication between countries, the spread of television in the world and Americanization have promoted a better understanding between peoples and fostered sympathy toward America. The same processes, however, have made it easier for people to compare their countries with the United States. After 1991, the opening of Russia to the West set the stage for constant comparisons. As avid travelers, the “new Russians” took numerous trips to the U.S. and could easily draw the comparison between themselves and their counterparts.

In some cases, the act of comparing oneself to others, along with the ensuing envy, inspires people to greater achievements. We might call this “white” or “benign” envy. In the first years after the anti-Communist revolution in 1991 envy of America was indeed benign in Russia. The elites still believed that they could catch up with the West. Indeed, they tried to imitate many aspects of the American model of society. When the economic reforms failed, however, the Russians’ confidence in achieving their goals diminished and their “white” envy turned “black.”

The famous British philosopher Bertrand Russell talked about the tendency of envious people to direct their frustration and hatred against the more powerful or prosperous. The bearer of envy sometimes dreams of revenge and destruction of the object of envy. Russell would not have been surprised by the people who gloated over the events of September 11. This behavior was observed in several countries, including Russia, where some people hoped that the catastrophe might bring the arrogant U.S. to its knees. Only a few days after the events, the noted Russian journalist Yulia Latynina suggested that the “perfidious and craven U.S.” would collapse, following “the fate of Atlantis.” The formula “We have pity for Americans but not for America” was widespread in Russia. Though a humanistic camouflage was apparent in the media in the days following the attack, the true feelings of many Russian elites were already materializing.

Components of envy: Inferiority and Superiority.

As submitted in Friedrich Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, “black envy” is particularly strong in people and groups (or even nations) who are unable to stay on par with their objects of envy and have no chance for success in the near future. Indeed, envy is closely intertwined with the feeling of impotence. The unexpected growth of America’s role in the world after September 11 only increased Russia’s complex of inferiority. The U.S. clearly demonstrated its determination to attack international terrorists and was decisive in recruiting several other countries in this war.

In the case of Russia, President Vladimir Putin made a series of decisions that could only be interpreted as the recognition of America’s supreme role in the world. Besides issuing a vigorous endorsement of the strikes in Afghanistan, he acquiesced to the U.S. exit from the ABM treaty, the extension of NATO as well as the presence of U.S. forces in Central Asia and Georgia. He also ordered the abandonment of military bases in Cuba and Vietnam. For Russian elites, these were bitter signs of the growing power of America and the further decline of Russia’s influence.

As the war in Afghanistan progressed, the American military achievements shocked the Russian public. The destruction of the Taliban regime came quicker and with fewer human casualties than they could imagine, particularly those politicians and army generals who had predicted a long, painful war. The precision of bombs and other new military technology looked to Russians like something borrowed from science fiction. The military’s visual control of land operations in Afghanistan from bases in the U.S. flabbergasted the public. Russia’s pride was further injured when reports were released on the stunning quality of the U.S. army stationed in Central Asia, particularly the bases in Kirgizstan, where the equipment and lifestyle of soldiers and officers suggested to the Russian people that the armies of the U.S. and Russia belonged to different civilizations. In contrast, when the Soviet and American troops met at Elba in April 1945, the differences in material equipment between the two armies were imperceptible.

While some Russian journalists described the miracles of the American army, others focused on the numberless problems in the Russian army—from the catastrophic status of its helicopter fleet to the lack of food and clothes for its soldiers. According to a respected Russian military expert, the army “is continuing to demoralize” and “has not received in the last decade even one new brand of weapon.” The poverty of soldiers and officers has become an admitted fact in Russian society. Just a few months prior to the Olympic Games, military officials were humiliated by a series of army desertions. In most of these cases, the deserters murdered some of their fellow soldiers and officers.

As a source of further disheartenment, in late 2001 and early 2002, there were a series of violent crimes against several elites. Two members of the Russian Academy of Science were murdered. The dean of Moscow University was nearly beaten to death. The daughter of another dean from the same university, along with her boyfriend and the grandson of an oil oligarch were brutally killed. A famous writer was robbed and beaten in the Moscow streets and a prominent film director and his son were cruelly harassed by hooligans. A general outcry sounded in the media that the state could not protect the elites from being exterminated. Ordinary Russians were no less concerned about their physical safety.

After September 11, a feeling of “angry weakness”—a term frequently used in the media—emerged for the first time in Russian society. The people talked about the decline of their country to the status of a “province of the Roman empire” (i.e., America). Some Russian intellectuals assert that under Putin’s rule, “the country is as weak as at the time of the tartar-mongol yoke.” The country has also been regarded as “a colony or protectorate of the U.S.”—a widely used statement in the Russian mainstream media. With respect to any type of confrontation with the U.S., Russian journalists talk about “a war doomed to be lost,” or “an uneven fight between two boxers, one weak and one strong, in which resistance from the first only inflames the anger of the second.” The media is inundated with self-deprecation of all sorts. Russia has been regarded as a “vanquished” and “dying” country. “Today, the Russian army can not be treated as an organized military organization.” “Russia lost to America in the geopolitical game.” The Russians feel so humiliated as a nation that some discuss the possibility of suing their leaders for the war in Chechnia.

As a common case, the inferiority complex in the Russian mind is combined with a claim of superiority over the United States. On the same pages of newspapers in which journalists and intellectuals downgrade Russia, they go on harangues about their country’s decisive edge over the U.S. in culture and morals. In Nezavisimaia Gazeta, an author depicted Russia as “a country whose greatness is based on her spiritual, intellectual and moral potential. Only Russia, with her moral position in foreign policy, can oppose the American cowboy style in the international arena. If the U.S. is permitted to act alone, America herself, along with the whole Western civilization, will suffer.”

Some envious Russians dream of revenge against America. They hope for new conditions in which “they will have some new power” (for instance, by becoming America’s major oil supplier) to punish America “for what it did to Russia.” The mainstream Russian newspaper Nezavisimaia Gazeta hinted that America’s hegemonic policy and its gigantic military expenditures portend a catastrophe for the country. These claims were similar to reports in Zavtra, which regularly predicts a total collapse of America.

The Olympic Games: A case study on envy

The bearer of envy often believes that the object of envy has plotted against it and always tries to discourage an equilibrium between the two. Conspiracy theories involving American forces acting against Russia’s progress are a fixture in the publications and speeches of many Russian politicians and intellectuals. Likewise, the Russian media (even the most liberal newspaper Kommersant Daily) regards the U.S. as an egotistical country that is obsessed with trying to damage and humiliate Russia. America has also been denounced for its “black ingratitude”—a new term used frequently in the media. Alluding to Russia’s support of the U.S. after September 11, the noted historian Vladlen Sirotkin said, “The word gratitude is absent from the lexicon of the American politicians.”

These developments were clearly revealed in Russia’s reaction to the Olympic Games. The medal race was widely regarded as more important than any “love of the games.” In Soviet times, the people considered international competition as equivalent to war. Soviet sports and politics were deeply interwoven.

The Russian people were disappointed with their team’s performance at Salt Lake, especially in comparison with its sterling performances in the Soviet period. Russia took fourth place. As soon as this relative defeat became known, the people directed their anger toward the United States. The hysteria began when the figure skating results were revised and Russian skiers were removed from the competition on doping allegations.

During the Olympics, to use the words of a respected Russian journalist, “a wave of anti-Americanism of unseen might literally inundated Russian TV.” In February, the minds of many educated Russians looked like a picture by Hieronymus Bosch, replete with all kinds of monsters aimed at Russia. The White House was a demon who had conspired to humiliate Russia at the Olympics “as revenge for the country’s victories in the space race and for Khrushchev’s threat to America.” With its patriotic rage, the U.S. ran the Games for its own benefit. The people conjured up “anonymous forces,” which “organized the doping attacks against the Russian skiers,” paid off the perfidious judges, advanced “a well-designed PR attack” and shamelessly “stole medals” from the Russian athletes. The members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) were deemed myrmidons of America who brought doping charges against “innocent Russian boys and girls,” literally “sucking extra blood from them for unnecessary tests,” particularly the female skiers. Meanwhile, it was reported that the American hokey team had won because they had been allowed to use doping. The fans at the Olympic Games were also seen as hostile toward Russia. “These monsters” sapped the strength and nerves of the Russian athletes at every turn. The “ugly American media” was unfair and unfriendly. The Russians also blamed gigantic international corporations for worsening their Olympic plight as well as the Olympic bureaucracy, which was headed by the “abominable” Jacques Rogge.

The conspiracy theory that America wanted to humiliate Russia and intentionally oust it from high sport was shared by the most respectable individuals and media agencies. Many of them totally ignored any factor that mitigated America’s culpability.

Two famous Russian cultural figures, Mikhail Zadornov and Nikita Mikhalkov, represented those numerous “patriots” who vied with each other in demonstrating their contempt for America and its subversive activities against Russia. Zadornov, who was very close to Yeltsin (they even live in the same house in Moscow) went so far as to tear up his U.S., multi-entrance visa in front of television cameras in protest of the American behavior at the Games. Mikhalkov, a famous film director and notorious nationalist, took on the role of a television journalist at the Games. In the course of his coverage, he attacked everything from the organizers (he called them “pickpockets” who over-commercialized the Games) to the president of the IOC, who made a “tragic political mistake” that would come “with gigantic consequences” when he awarded the joint-gold to the Canadian figure skating pair. He even saw in the current developments “a new Cold War” and demanded “demonstrative action” from the government or the public to show Russia’s anger toward America. Vasilii Aksenov, a famous liberal writer, accused America of “wrenching the legs and hands of Russian athletes.” He railed against American patriotism and mocked the claim of its media “to be independent and balanced.” Aksenov did not spend any time discussing the current conditions of Russian sports facilities and programs.
Even the most liberal newspaper, Novaia Gazeta, cited a sports official who said that in Salt Lake City “we were somewhat on the territory of the enemy and were besieged from all sides.” Several journalists compared the Salt Lake City Games to the 1935 Games in Nazi Germany. They said that “America conducted the ‘Cold War’ at the Olympic Games.”

Irrationality of politicians

The most striking development was the involvement of high officials, particularly members of the parliament, who stood in “defense of Russian athletes.” They blindly accepted the frustrated sports officials’ version of the story. Deputy Prime Minister Victor Khristenko lamented that “Russians have been openly and unfairly humiliated at the Olympic Games.” His sentiments were seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister Valentina Matvienko and Moscow Mayor Yurii Luzhkov, both of whom attended the Games, as well as by Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Kudrin, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, Chair of the Security Council Vladimir Rushailo and Boris Nemtsov, the former deputy prime minister and current head of the liberal party “The alliance of right forces.” All of these officials bemoaned the treatment of the Russian athletes. Many more politicians joined the frenetic anti-American campaign.

The State Duma unanimously passed a resolution that condemned the foreign media’s treatment of Russia, drawing a comparison to the Cold War. Even liberal deputies did not dare to vote against it. The overwhelming majority (359 out of 420) voted for a boycott of the Games. Expressing his anger, Dmitry Rogozin, head of the Duma’s foreign committee, talked about “America’s ability to organize the dishonest Olympic Games.” He shouted repeatedly the words of a Russian emperor, “It is time to understand that Russia has only two allies, the army and navy.” The leading party faction in the Duma passed its own resolution condemning the U.S. and the IOC for discriminating against Russians. Almost all of the 420 Duma deputies demanded from the IOC “the exclusion of the North Americans in the team of judges for the semifinals of the hokey tournament,” warning that a refusal to do so could lead “to the most unpredictable political consequences.”

(continued in next post)

posted February 03, 2007 09:52 PM              

There were a few Russian politicians and journalists who remained coherent during the Olympics. Gavriil Popov, a famous liberal nationalist, made one of the most eloquent ripostes to the national paranoia. He not only rejected the accusations against the organizers and judges of the Games, but accused Russian sports officials and managers of imposing doping on the athletes. Moreover, he said that “the Russian nomenklatura brought to the Olympic Games the criminal methods that they used in their own country,” and first of all, the lies that were so widely used in the case of the Kursk and in the war in Chechnia. Mocking the bureaucrats who tried to justify Russia’s mediocre performance with “the hostility that surrounded them at the Games,” Irina Petrovskaia, a respected journalist, pungently noted, “Patriotism is the last refuge for a bad dancer.” Musing about the “hysteria in connection with the defeat of the Russian team at the Olympiads,” Sergei Karaganov could not hide his amazement about this “phantasmagoria.” He sarcastically asked Russian journalists and elites if they indeed thought that “Bush and Rumsfeld directed the Olympic judges?” Yulia Kalinina, a witty observer of life in Russia, described the splashes of anti-Americanism as a continuous flow of irrational cases, from the scandals surrounding the Games to the controversy over the trade conflicts with the U.S. She compared her country to a psychiatric hospital (she used the term “durdom,” meaning “house of fools” in Russian slang).

A few journalists blamed the country’s poor Olympic performance on the government, condemning it for its inability to keep the Soviet sports heritage alive. A
leading sports journalist described the Russian program as “stifled by rampant corruption and a lack of money and other resources for developing a strong youth sports program.” As another sober voice noted, Russia does not have a single skating rink or training facility for skiers that meets international standards. In the same vein, a journalist talked about how Russian stadiums have been converted into markets, such as the famous Luzhniki market in Moscow.
Other cases of anti-Americanism

By mid March, the Russians had nearly forgotten about the scandals during the Olympics, but anti-Americanism persisted as a leading subject in the media. As a Moscow observer wrote, “The growing anti-American hysteria was deftly orchestrated by those who want to subvert not only the May meeting between the two presidents but the whole process of the rapprochement of the two countries.”

There were other cases, besides the Olympics, that caused outbursts of anti-Americanism in Russia. For instance, the American protectionist actions against steel imports, which particularly harmed European countries, were described as a trade war against Russia, and as “a pure political decision” directed against the country.

The export of American chickens—deemed “Bush legs” because exportation began during George Bush Senior’s presidency—was said to have “poisoned Russians” with salmonella for the last ten years. The media seized this issue, calling it a clear demonstration of America’s contempt for the health and well-being of the Russian people.

Yet another case in point was raised over the bankruptcy of the famous Victor Kamkin Russian Book Store in New York. Without evidence to support their claims, the Russian media highlighted the circumstances of the bankruptcy as an attack on Russian culture. At first, no one had wanted the two million Russian texts in the store’s inventory and so the idea of burning the books had been suggested. Although the attention to this issue was short-lived in the media, it made a lasting impression as a sign of America’s disrespect for Russian culture. The headline, “The burning of Russian books,” appeared in Sovietskaia Rossia. Even the moderate Izvestia carried the headline “Two million Russian books to be burned in America.”

The long-term impact of anti-American campaigns on Russian attitudes

The flare-up of anti-Americanism in February and March 2002 should not be considered a fleeting episode. The same type of outburst occurred in the spring of 1999 in connection with the bombardment of Yugoslavia. Although the poignancy of these episodes subsided, the long-term impact of these feelings should not be underestimated. There has been a sort of accumulation of irritations building up in Russia since the mid 1990s. Under these circumstances, Russian attitudes toward the United States have become volatile, particularly in the last few years.

Today, the elites’ hatred of America has become obvious. Among other things, they have not accepted the idea that America’s fight against international terrorism is also Russia’s war. As a prominent pollster noted, “in this country, a feeling is growing that the anti-terrorist alliance and the rapprochement with the U.S. has failed to materialize.” Most elites ignore the advantages of developing a friendly relationship with America. Journalists from the pro governmental newspaper Izvestia, the offices of which Putin recently visited, talked about the “many myths and phobias of the Cold War that are shared by most political elites.” Many elites have refused to accept Putin’s statement that the presence of American troops in Central Asia will help Russia protect itself against the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

Although the masses have largely positive feelings toward America, under the influence of the media, their attitudes can easily be swayed. The percentage of Russians who had “good or mostly good” views of the U.S. clearly declined after the start of the Olympics. According to VTSIOM, the number of people who had “good or mostly good” feelings toward the U.S. fell from 65 percent in January 2002 to 49 percent in March 2002. This level was only slightly higher than in spring 1999 when positive Russian attitudes toward the U.S. reached its nadir. Seemingly in conflict with Putin’s official policy, the number of Russians who regarded Russian-American relations as “friendly” or “good” dropped from 20 percent in September 2001 to 13 percent in March 2002.
Reading Putin’s mind

In light of the Russian elites’ embedded hatred of America and the ease with which they influence the masses, the most pressing question is: What does President Putin think of America? Only two years ago, he came to power with clear intentions to increase Russia’s geopolitical role in the world. Though he has obfuscated his hostility toward the U.S., it seems clear that he regards the country as a major obstacle to this goal. In fact, Putin has tried to flirt with Europe and China in an effort to pit these countries against the U.S. While he remains an ostensible advocate of cooperation with the U.S., the rise of anti-Americanism in Russia has placed his true feelings in question.

During the Olympics, Putin joined the propagandistic campaign against the U.S. The respected Moscow journalist Pavel Felgenhauer said on “Echo Moskvy” (a prestigious Moscow radio station) that the scandal was initiated directly by the president and it was his idea to boycott the Games. The next day Putin downgraded his anger and simply mentioned that he was suspicious of the “objectivity” of the judges “who live and work in North America.” Later he completely changed his conduct, dropped the idea of a boycott and pretended that nothing special had happened, explaining the outcomes as a case of having “too high expectations.”

Even if Putin had no complicity in the ferocious anti-American campaign in Russia, he did nothing to calm it. Meanwhile, he has decisive control over the mainstream media, particularly the television networks. Without his consent it would not be possible for the media to sustain the anti-American campaign, which shows no signs of slowing down. Indeed, on April 18, Putin gave a long presidential address to the Federal Assembly in which he mostly ignored the subject of America. The only attempt he made at reducing negative feelings toward the West came in his statement that “cruel competition for markets, investments, and political and economic influence is normal in the international community.”

It is noteworthy to compare Putin’s behavior with that of Leonid Brezhnev during the detente. Both leaders supposedly wanted to convince their American counterparts that they were serious about improving relations between the two countries. However, their actions were quite different. When President Nixon was embroiled in the Watergate affair Brezhnev did not permit Soviet propagandists to use this case for their purposes (and it was a juicy piece for the denunciation of the “corrupt capitalist democracy” . The Soviet media, in order not to offend the American president, initiated a blackout on the developments in Washington.

The views of Putin’s close circle of advisors provide another glimpse into the president’s mind. Putin lives in a milieu that is deeply immersed in envy and hatred of America. The editor of Moskovskii Novosti Victor Loshak noted, “Putin is forced to rely on those inside the country who hate his foreign policy.” As another prominent author said, “Whatever is the future of the romance with the West, Putin’s team, which is responsible for foreign and defense policy, continues to live by the logic of the Cold War.” It is hard to believe that while many people in his milieu (i.e., leading members of the presidential administration, several deputy prime ministers with whom he communicates regularly, and the absolute majority of the State Duma, which is firmly controlled by his people) are deeply anti-American, the president himself holds the opposite view. Such a discrepancy between the feelings of the leader and members of his or her team could never happen in Washington, London or Beijing. All the more, a blatant disagreement like this one has never been tolerated by the supreme leader in all of Russian history.

It is reasonable to assume that Putin’s subordinates, who spout their anti-American sentiments from time to time, comprehend the true feelings of their boss and advance these negative statements about the U.S. as a sign of solidarity. Using this logic, it is understandable that Putin, who has control of the media, tolerates the public critique of his foreign policy. Indeed, there are not many Russian politicians and political experts who openly defend Putin’s foreign policy. None of the eight prominent participants of the roundtable discussion, “V.V. Putin: two years after the elections, New Frontiers” (organized by the Civil Debate Club in Moscow at the end of March), uttered even one word of endorsement of the president’s foreign policy. Some authors freely accused the Kremlin “for its lack of strategic vision in international relations,” for its acceptance of Russia as “a minor partner” of the U.S., and for “delegating decision making about the country’s national interests to NATO, the European Union and the U.S.” Boris Yeltsin, who is usually reserved with respect to his heir and who had been accused of being submissive toward the
West during his tenure, recently assailed Putin as a weak leader, particularly in his foreign policy.

It is quite likely that Putin sympathizes with the patriotic feelings of his critics. On several occasions, he has openly expressed his admiration for the glorious Soviet past; he has also talked about the necessity of restoring Russia’s greatness. In the first months of his tenure, Putin was determined “to stop Russia’s geopolitical retreat,” to use the terminology of the Russian media. While remaining sympathetic to the calls for Russia to regain its influence in the world, Putin recognizes, perhaps more accurately than his critics, the real state of affairs in the country. In the past, he has sternly rebuked Russian politicians who strayed from a sober assessment of the country’s problems. At a recent meeting with scholars in Irkutsk, Putin ardently, though not without sadness, criticized the wishful thinking of some of his interlocutors who demanded Russia’s rapid return to its previous role in the world.

Considering his personality, it seems unlikely that he could enjoy the role of junior partner of the U.S. At the same time, he can not claim to be on equal ground with Bush in view of the gigantic economic and military gaps between Russia and the United States. The psychological climate that will surround the meetings between these two leaders is far removed from the tenor of meetings during the Soviet period (for instance, the discourse between Brezhnev and Nixon, as partners of the detente, or all the more between Roosevelt and Stalin, as members of the anti-Hitler coalition). In both cases, the Soviet leaders saw themselves as equal to their American counterparts.

Putin is clearly unconcerned about any threat to his rule from those who condemn his foreign policy. The Russian elites, including those in the military, are too demoralized to advance politicians who could challenge Putin. Moreover, in recent months, the president has enhanced his control over all institutions in Russia, including the media, the central bank and the parliament. At the same time, Putin continues to enjoy the full support of the masses; 72 percent of the Russians approved of Putin’s performance as president. For this reason, the leader of the democratic opposition Grigori Yavlinsky’s arrant statement that the “military is preparing a political revanche and that Putin will share the fate of Khrushchev in 1964” can be dismissed as having no empirical basis.

Conclusion

Putin has emerged as a pro American lone ranger in a sea of envy and hatred of America. The anti-American feelings of the elite are deeply embedded and will not likely change in the next years. The future of Russian-American relations depends on whether Putin continues to oppose the emotional pressures of envious elites and maintains his conviction that an alliance with the West is the only path to Russian economic progress and protection against Islamic fundamentalism.

The case in which the leader’s attitude is more pro Western than his political milieu is rather typical for Russia. This tendency was also true for Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and of course Gorbachev and Yeltsin.

posted February 04, 2007 11:29 AM              

I have a question for you.

Do you consider the possibility that all nations, all people have to work together to have a balance we can all prosper from?

For instance, there are no borders in the sky and pollution spreads to all. This is a point that has to be qualified from something I heard on the BBC that if we were to cut our emissions for the next 3 years China for instance would make up that shortfall through growth alone. As everyone knows, this is something the US needs to be seen to be playing ball on for all our sakes. We are all responsible.

I think the US is in a position of influence and power unlike anything thats gone before, be it the Romans, the British Empire, etc. With great power comes great responsibility, and from the facts you have laid out here and elsewhere the US seems to be taking this seriously...in part.

I do think there is a great Anti-US feeling around the world, and even here where we feel much more connected to you there are always questions about the US's actions abroad. I feel this is much to do with ourselves cocking up so much and influecing so mcuh when we were in your current position, though I feel in a similar way to you with the States that Britain gets too much flack.

I have to say that no-one in this position has ever done enough to show responsibility for their power and the US is simply catching a lot of criticism for events that are so high profile at present. Nothing escapes a newspaper or a television channel these days.

It MUST be frustrating to feel held back or opoosed by the "old powers", but surely the fact the Europeans have been fighting each other for millenia has taught them something.

After all, the US is actually a product of all that chaos in the first place. Obviously, time has seen a nation define itself and grow, but the foundations were built on the experience, mistakes and successes of what has gone before.

The problem is that European countries make such a diplomatic shambles of everything they do not offer a good role model for the past, so I hear you on that.

Also, I think jealousy of the US plays a HUGE role as it always does when someone or something is at the top. That is human nature unforyunately, and there are soooo many different ways to dress it.

But, I do believe, the US could never actually be completely seperated from the rest of the world as we are all under the same Sun.

p.s. Racism is an ambiguous term that for me allows interpretations to be completely subjective. I do however feel that if a nation, people or even a religion or movement is isolated and commented on, then the act in itself is clearly prejudice.

posted February 04, 2007 11:55 AM              

quote:

---

Being ‘racist’ is just part of being a well rounded, educated and experienced individual.

---

posted February 04, 2007 07:15 PM              

quote:

---

Given what you mentioned yes, but im talking about Anti American slogans graffitied all over Europe that have nothing to do with American tourists being rude.

---

I have really never been to Eastern Europe at least, but I have been to central europe and do feel Europeans to be a little resentful of Americans. I was speaking of Middle Eastern sentiments (I am most of the time, because that is the culture I come from and that my mentality represents), as were you speaking about European mentalities (because thats something that you have experienced and come from) so I Think there were two separate but equally valid viewpoints there.

quote:

---

The reason why I say is not clear is evident as you made the mistake of calling Jews a race. There are only 3 races (anthropologically) known to man : Negroid, Caucasian and Mongoloid. Jews are at most an ethnicity kinda like Hindus. Hinduism is a non proselytizing religion that isnt big on converts just like Judaism and has a strict rules of who is acceptable and who isnt (i have many many Hindu friends). In fact there are quite some similarities there. But one wouldnt call Hindus a race.

Furthermore the Jews are not unified by any means of the word. If they were I wouldnt be a blue eyed blonde and neither would my mom and quite some of my family. The original Jews had semitic (ie middle eastern) features , most of the Ashkenazi (European) jews I know do not share those features, even though they do show up here and there. 50% of Jewish youth intermarries with other religions to the point that its causing a panic. So no they havnt been unified by a mile. (consider that as many Jews live in the US as in Israel).

---

The 'mistake' wasn't such in my POV because Jews (over history) even if you dont consider them as such nowadays; theyve always been a nation separate from the countries theyve lived in. They were at large never accepted in Europe (in most countries) and many Jews whom I have talked to (including the Rabbis I studied with) talk about Jews as the 'Hebrew nation' or the nation of Israel; genetically separate (times in their history they were told not to intermarry in order to 'preserve the race' and such).

quote:

---

While races do stay the same i meant to say they are hard to define by looking at someone for example. [quote]

Yes, but the most core way of identifying someone. When USSR broke up for instance, peoples ethnicities and identities didnt change over night although their environment may have--they were the same 'race'. I guess i associate race with ethnicity.

[quote]"The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), genes, and self-identification. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial, for scientific reasons as well as because of their impact on social identity and identity politics. Some scientists regard race as a social construct while others maintain it has genetic basis."

"Scientific support for the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid terminology of racial classification has fallen somewhat over the past century. These terms originally denoted skull types and sprang from the technique known as craniofacial anthropometry, but have fallen somewhat in scientific use over the past century. The terms appear in two main usages today. They are used in forensic anthropology, and they are used in several fields as euphemisms for terms that came to be seen as offensive by some about thirty years ago. In the past, they were more widely used in craniofacial anthropometry in phylogeography."

---

As you mentioned yourself, these terms have fallen out of use. Modern day classification is complex and stems from the various ethnic groups that have come to distinguish themselves ethnically--or become 'pockets' within larger groups.

posted February 04, 2007 08:36 PM            

quote:

---

I shud add that I dont think Jews are as disunified--they have their points of argumentation and division like any religious group but they are surprisingly unified

---

Considering that new European (jewish) immigrants are greately discriminated against by the Israelis who were born there and treated as second class, id have to disagree. I actually think that Muslims are far more unified because any attack on a Muslim or a Muslim nation will get all the Muslims angry and they will be quick to defend that nation despite their own conflicts, the Jews will never agree upon anything. They dont even agree on if they support their own nation of Israel. So no they aren't unified one bit.

Christianity is a proselytizing religion and as such it aquired followers from completely different cultural backgrounds and original religions. You should also consider the fact that Christianity as a whole is 3.0 billion large thats 50% of the world's population. Given that its practically impossible for it to be unified but it is VERY unified within its denominations. Judaism is much smaller (15 million) and the Jews are divided not only as a religion but also as a people.

quote:

---

And I think the creation of Israel is a factor thats uniting rather than dividing the Jewish population

---

Yes, more so than before Israel but not enough.

quote:

---

rarely have I met a Jewish person who is anti Israel or willing to say that the nation should not have been created in the way it was.

---

HAHA then i should introduce you to some! You would be SO surprised how many so called "self hating Jews" are there out there, and how many hate Israel as well.

quote:

---

I just feel like you are underestimating the Jewish population (particularly because no matter where Jewish people are or what they look like, they are brought up in such a similar way--with the religious knowledge, working knowledge of Hebrew generally, and emphasis on higher education).

---

Bull cr*p im sorry but i have a LOT of Jewish friend and at most 2 know Hebrew. They arent brought up in a similar way AT ALL! I have a Jewish friend brought up in Brooklyn, he has been raised like any other Brooklynite. A Jewish frind from Long Island and he acts like someone who'd know Paris Hilton cuz his parents spoil him. Jews from the Soviet Union are raised with the harshness of parents who grew up in a communist country (just try bringing a bad grade home....and thats anything below a 95). And I have a Jewish friend from Iran who is raised just like any Iranian teenager and shares their values. So no they dont even come close to being raised with similar values, thats like saying a Christian from America has same values as a Christian from Latin America or a Christian from Europe. Far from it.

quote:

---

I mean just take one look at the country of Israel and you'll see Jews of all different colors and types united in one place as a nation--even with all their disagreements--they are united against non Jewish people

---

WOA WOA WOA! Lets not talk about uniting against non-Jews...I havn't heard any of my friends call anyone an infidel. Those are a rare few. Lets get one thing straight: Jews are not more united against non Jews, than Muslims against non Muslims, Christians against non Christians and Hindus against non Hindus.

quote:

---

I mean historical events, like WWII, and so many others throughout the course of Jewish history, have kept the Jewish people as a nation and a 'separate ethnicity' if you get what Im saying.

IP

---

That wasnt because the Jews are unified thats cuz Europe is unified against the Jews. You cant do anything in Europe if you are a Jew it says that on your birth certificate under nationality. You could be living in Slovakia and under nationality it will say "Jew". And in your passport and documents and then try applying to college or work with that. Jews from different countries consider themselves nationals of those countries, ESPECIALLY in the former Soviet Union.

quote:

---

There is a lot of hate towards Americans in many European nations but not really towards the women. Usually towards the American men.

---

posted February 04, 2007 09:56 PM              

They don't usually say bad things to the women. In fact. they usually try and hook up with them.

We're not talking Middle East here.

And what's the ermmm about? Are you constipated?

posted February 04, 2007 10:39 PM            

Perhaps the reason why you think men are more likely to get attacked is because the men are more likely to speak up or be walking at night than women are. Men tend to put themselves out there more which is probably why they get attacked more, but women are in just as much danger.

quote:

---

We're not talking Middle East here.

---

So? We are all aware that Middle East isn't being discussed because we all stated Europe a couple of times...I know you usually don't know what you're talking about, but the rest of us do.

posted February 05, 2007 12:34 PM              

Ermm...no...all Americans, period end of story.

thanks for clearing that up BUD, at first i thought it was a sexist issue.

I have a really important question...So do they hate americans for a justifiable reason? Is their hate just (referring to 'justice')? And if so what would they justify it with?

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis

posted February 05, 2007 01:56 PM              

I would say pure hatred is rarer than you think for the US.

There are some areas of course, but many US citizens despise the French, but you'd still pass them the milk for their coffee or be concerned for their children if they needed your help.

Americans are a funny bunch as we make fun of you all the time ourselves, but every time an American turns up there is an instant rapport and everyone gets on fine. People seem to go out of their way to make Yanks comfortable, we have a lot of affection for you underneath and that's more genuine in reality.

I think secretly everyone would prefer you guys to be more...I guess interactive and appreciative of other ways of thinking and history.

I suspect mainland Europeans find it disrespectful in a way that they aren't taken more seriously considering what they have all been through. I in fact think the US is seen primarily as disrespectful of history and the older cultures and this creates some resentment. The foreign policy argument leans towards this as well. Like the new big kid on the block calling the shots.

I don't think that's so much the case over here, more a source of amusement.

Be careful not think everyone has PURE HATE for the US. It just isn't so.

Even those who think George Bush is a joke as a leader figure (not the political side) don't judge the rest of you by him. We've all had our fair share of those and know better.

posted February 05, 2007 08:18 PM              

I just think you can provide all the disunity examples because you have seen it as your from the Jewish faith; I can provide as many examples of disunity from Muslims because Im from this faith ; it doesnt prove anything in the end. These facts exist; your conclusion can be drawn from them and so can mine. Unfortunately disunity isnt something quantifiable (muslims would be off the scale let me tell you ) and so theres no way of proving someone is more disunified than another, but I feel like once again youre underestimating the Jewish population. IF there is so little similarlity in upbringing why are the results so similar--with such a hugely disproportionate amt of Jewish people being nobel prize winners versus the rest of the world for instance (i believe 22% of nobel prize winners are jewish whereas jews are a tiny percent of the world pop).

posted February 05, 2007 10:14 PM            

quote:

---

but I can come with as many if not more examples of Muslim disunity--from a neighborhood to neighborhood basis (fights and discrimination) to a political basis (factions bombing and killing each other and selling out to the US to get in power and suppress the other) to religious (you would imagine everyones united at Hajj? Well some ppl are treated like cr@p by the Saudi govt when they go for Hajj, because theyre non Arab, and my moms had that experience once).

---

You're right I think that is common in all religious groups.

quote:

---

but I feel like once again youre underestimating the Jewish population.

---

Perhaps I am from what I have seen in my life and acted myself...

posted February 09, 2007 12:23 PM              

quote:

---

We see now, the consequences of the elitist attitudes in Europe. The unelected bureaucratic elite have decided to operate the European Union without the benefit of a constitution...which requires ratification of ALL European nations. But, not even in France could they get the constitution ratified by the people.

No problem, just pretend we have the authority to enforce our edicts anyway.

A few more years and those unelected socialist bureaucrats are going to be telling Europeans not only what they can and cannot do, what they can and cannot say, what they can and cannot eat, what they can and cannot read, what operation they can and cannot have but what they can and cannot think

---

posted February 09, 2007 01:49 PM            

The entire European Union is a vast bureaucracy of unelected little socialist planners seeking to tell everyone what to do, how to do it and when to do it. Not only that, but what to say, how to think and even the range of acceptable things TO think.

But, I'm interested in what YOU think.

posted February 09, 2007 02:58 PM              

quote:

---

France was one of the nations which could not get the EU Constitution ratified by the French people.
The entire European Union is a vast bureaucracy of unelected little socialist planners seeking to tell everyone what to do, how to do it and when to do it. Not only that, but what to say, how to think and even the range of acceptable things TO think.

But, I'm interested in what YOU think.

So, what DO YOU think? And WHY?

---

posted February 09, 2007 03:06 PM            

I know exactly what they are by the means and methods they employ to impose their will.

posted February 09, 2007 03:31 PM            

States balk at national license

Cost of implementing U.S. driver ID system, privacy concerns spur 7 states to oppose the plan.

Leslie Miller / Associated Press
WASHINGTON --

A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states.

The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases.

posted February 25, 2007 03:55 PM              

quote:

---

I know what they think and not only what they think..but how they think..by what they propose; the blizzard of rules, regulations, policies and procedures they enact and attempt to impose as law.
I know exactly what they are by the means and methods they employ to impose their will.

In the case of the European Union, it's being done without the consent of the people of the nations which make up the EU...without Constitutional authority.

---

jwhop, can you extend on this, i would love to know the secret?

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis