Ciao!

I'd like to know why Americans are "Euro-phobic".
Why do they (Americans) hate us (Europeans)?

Interesting question. They funny thing is, I don't think we do. We love French fashion, Italian cuisine, German music, Czech authors. Are there some xenophobic Americans? Sure. But we don't usually think of Europeans as backward, stupid, uneducated imbeciles. We usually think of them as just like us. Most Americans have a hard time understanding why so many Europeans think of us as stupid, uncultured, cowboys. Why is that?

Indeed it is an interesting question. The thing is, there is Anti-Europeanism in America as much as there is Anti-Americanism in Europe, but they differ from eachother. Timothy Ash wrote an interesting article in the New York Review of Books on this and I think he pointed one source out: The collapse of the West-East divide. For the 50 years between 1941 and 1991 there has been a common enemy west of ...Britain, France .. and later Germany. ... (TBC)

Europe, in the eye of an increasing EU has been looking for a new identity after the collapse of the East. And with that new identity the US changes from "us" to "them" (or others). The US does not like it, but the behavior is reciprocal. The stereotypes used aren't. Any merit to that theory? What do you think?

Good points. But back to the original point (Bennett's article): He wasn't arguing that all Europeans were anti-American. But rather that a great deal of the anti-Americanism - that is, the opposition to American values (certainly many Europeans share these values as well) - is based on this kind of anti-modernism. And I think his argument is clearly valid. We face the same thing in the US. Much of the anti-globalization argument is fueled by bourgeois American youths who detest industrial capitalism and its values (which, BTW, Arendt would define as a "Philistine").

I could see this argument as being valid. One of the things "we" Europeans share is our history ... when we were great (because no one else was). A lot of the things "we" like are things that come out of older value, appreciation for "historic" buildings etc, but as well as the appreciation for achievements from back then. Now the U.S. has surpassed "us" in that regard and part of the Anti-Americanism is envy to Americans achievements (Ash points that out too, I think).
I wonder if some of the appreciation for the old things comes from it making us unique and inherently anti-modern. (TBC)

The Americans on the other hand have always seen themselves as being different (better?) than Europe. Now don't take the better in parantheses as an insult. What I mean here is that Americans of today are disatisfied Europeans from "yesterday" (for the most part). The left Europe for America because they were dissatisfied with Europe of back then and worked for a "better" America. America as an antidode to Europe? If this argument is valid, then the Cold War just covered this up and it always has been there. Then again ... the US has not been that big of a power before WW1 and did not even have today's power pre-WW2, so it is hard to say when the rift started to deepen.

Be careful in talking of the history you "share". That history includes some of the world's bloodiest wars. And it also lends itself to a bit of xenophobia. Personally, I think most nationalisms are pretty ridiculous. Replacing French "pride" w/ European "pride" (based on common history and culture) sounds a bit like "Aryan pride" to me. At least American nationalism (if/when it exists) is more and more based on the idea that the vast majority of us aren't "native". A Chinese-American is no different than an Irish-American or a Mexican-American or an Arab-American. Perhaps that's Turkey's problem w/ joining the EU? They're just not "Aryan" enough? Interesting. And. Disturbing.

Be careful in talking of the history you "share". I did not say we share glory history. We share some of the bloodiest and cruelest wars, but still it sets us apart from America (and others). China as well fought wars, but different ones, against other enemies.

Xenophobic? Maybe. Identity has a feature where it distinguishes between what is "us" and what is "them", that can be xenophobic.

Turkey's problem is manyfold and I think one of the problems is that we define Turkey only in part European. In standard definition, Europe reaches to the Balkans, to the Ural, but Turkey is in part Asian, in part European. The European continent has a clear defined western boarder, but its Eastern boarder? Does it include or exclude Turkey?

Of course, the simplest retort would be: Why does the border matter?

Russia is a "European" country, and it extends into the Pacific Ocean. Australia is "European" and isn't even in Europe.

The question is: What is Europe? Or the West? Is it a region? Is it an ethnicity? Or is it an idea?

US nationalism is both "open" and "civic". French nationalism is usually defined as "civic" but not "open" (e.g. their obsession w/ "cultural purity"). Nazi ideology was neither "open" nor "civic".

I think anti-americanism is in part due to envy. European nations lost power in comparison to the United States. (on a governmental level)

On the level of individuals, i think, Anti-Americanism has less to do with envy but more with angryness about American pride. In their view America is a know-it-all who wouldn't listen. Often the same europeans protest against US politics as well as against globalization. In my opinion this has less to do with nationalism but more with a certain idealistic notion of socialsism.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bennett's arguments about stimuli for advance and anti-semitism remain very superficial.

I don't think Bennett's far off. The key to distinguishing Europe and the US is the difference between homogeneity and pluriculturalism. Many of the Europeans who denounce globalization (though not all) are very nationalistic. There are elements of the slow food movement, for example, that highly idealize peasant life. This is important, since idealizing a past is an arch-conservative feature - it's also behind the Nazi fascination w/ the "volk".

Bennett argues that what made the Enlightenment and the burst of German Idealism was the intellectual revolution that mirrored the industrial-material one. It was a leap into the future, rather than clinging to the past. And it was driven in large part by Jewish intellectuals who were (as Bennett puts it) "emancipated". In other words, it was pluriculturalism. Germany was an idea, not a race. Once it became a race, not an idea, it's intellectual development stifled.

The US is a mutt culture. We're all half-breeds and bastard children of many races. We've no pretensions. American culture is littered w/ stereotypes of the American aristocracy as much as w/ stereotypes of snooty European. Why? Because we laugh at the very idea of aristocratic privilege. We laugh at the idea that any race is pure. We know deep down what few Frenchmen would admit: there is no pure French blood, there never was, there never will be. We are all the products of mass migrations, cultural melting pots, intermarriages. We admit it, embrace it, celebrate it.

More and more Europe seems to be turning into a single homogenous void. Recall Chirac's words and the recent chastisement of the new EU members yesterday: there should be no dissent, Europe should speak w/ a single voice. Ah, the dream of Napoleon and Hitler's Europa.

I thought I'd add a link back to one of my old posts that might be relevant to this debate:

Who is an American?

Turkey is unacceptable in the EU because of their appalling disregard for human rights and their treatment of women, not because of their ethnicity, and to suggest otherwise is pretty offensive. As for anti-Americanism, I'd say it's pretty clear from this that anti-Europeanism is the real question in the 'you are either with us or against us' America of today. It's not 'America' or the American people that some Europeans have a problem with, it's just that odd chimpanzee fellow you have for an unelected President. And, Miguel, if you can't see the difference between a modern united Europe and Hitler's Third Reich then you really have been watching to much American TV.

Patrick:

Yes, I know that there's a dramatic difference between Hitler's "Third Reich" and a "United Europe." However, keep in mind that Hitler often spoke about "Europa" in much the same way that many modern Europeans speak of it. And look above at the previous comments and some of the things I cited -- much of the argument against Turkey's entry to the EU is "cultural" (arguments that they don't share the same "cultural legacy" of the rest of Europe).

Yes, Turkey has an abysmal human rights record when compared to most Western European countries. But remember that the first nation to recognize Croatia during the whole Bosnian genocide was Germany -- which supported the German Ustazi movement responsible for the death of millions of Serbs and Muslims in the 1940s. Add to that much of the recent Berlin-Paris-Brussels axis about a "cultural" Europe (keeping in mind that outside of Germany the main source of Waffen SS volunteer corps came from France and Belgium).

My point isn't that the EU is Nazi. Far from it. My point is that I can see how many Turks might see themselves as specifically singled out when in comes to EU membership. Sure, Turkey's human rights record is mixed and its democracy has some problems. But more than Hungary? Or Greece? Poland? Bulgaria? Why are there massive EU efforts to help modernize Croatia and Macedonia, but not Muslim Bosnia? These are questions the Turks ask themselves too often.

No, that doesn't come from watching too much "American" TV. It comes from trying to see the situation from the Turkish perspective. Asked for decades to volunteer to be Europe's front line against the Soviet threat (they were the only NATO member to share a border w/ the USSR) but never allowed to enjoy the economic benefits of joining Europe. Turkey has felt itself used by its European neighbors for decades. At what point to they just decide that they'd rather ally themselves w/ their Arab neighbors, rather than w/ the West?

The E.U. is a marvelous, sublime,redoubtable creation. Our children will see the light of day, rise out from their genuflecting position in the midst of rats, and be a part of a greater uber alles, a Europe for Europeans. Ah, mein comraden, the rat infestation will be purged, and stability restored to Earth:::

Miguel- your posts make me sick. I couldn't disagree more. Wish I had time to elaborate, but sadly I don't. I'm too busy NOT laughing at the idea of aristocratic priviedge and believing that races CAN be pure. Just because you're a "bastard child of many races" doesn't mean that everyone is. You're a pathetic liberal idiot who wants to drag the whole world down into your disgusting gutter. Goodbye.

Why is there so much anti-americanism in europe? Simple, the Bushit gave us two choices: agree with your warmongering or become "the enemy". Well, maybe Im wrong, maybe the anti-american thing comes from the fact that people just dont like a nation of obese,gun-toting tv-addicts who dont care about war but are deeply concerned wether "the bachelor" will choose the blonde hoe or the other blonde hoe...

America has been much more active in the "anti-europe" business.
I think its truly an american way of protesting to rename the crap youre eating...

If someone made such sweeping, negative generalization about, say, Africans or handicapped people or women or any other group it'd be considered bigotry. Interesting. But I suppose anti-American bigotry is acceptable.

ah, yes and I suppose its also ok to say that europeans (as if we are one nation), are obsessed with "race" and racial purity. You also compare the EU with the idea of the 3rd reich! The EU has much more in common with the "united states" than with the nazi concept of the 3rd reich... Now, most of the crap that those extreme republicans spew forth could have come from the mouth of any radical nationalist in europe. You reveal your ignorance when you talk of europeans being snobs and racist, take the european "capital", Brussels, for example: 30% of its inhabitants are not born there, and half of those are muslims (15%). The other 70% of the city are split between french and flemmish people. Does it sound like they are obsessed with race?

Yen, I find it interesting that you choose to attack me personally, when I didn't treat you so disrespectfully. But to answer your claims:

I can't find any place where I said that "all" or even "most" Europeans are obsessed w/ racial purity or anything else. And I do believe the record shows that I've tried to be more than open to the reality that most Europeans are good people. So don't accuse me of bigotry. Even if it were true (which it isn't) it would not excuse your own. If you want to take the moral high road, feel free to do so. But two wrongs don't make a right.

As to my comment about Europe and the Third Reich. Yes, the EU has much in common w/ the US. And I didn't say that the EU was a new Third Reich. My statement (if you read it carefully) was very clear that my objection was to defend the EU using the same moral premises used to promote Hitler's vision of "Europa" -- that is, a common cultural legacy (which sounds too much like racism to me).

Brussels may very well have a large Muslim population, but I do believe that several Belgian politicians have played the race card recently; there is also dangerous (and rising) anti-Semitic acts in that country (as, also, in France) as of late. Does that make all Belgians racists? Of course not. But let's at least be clear on that. If census statistics about race figures are to be used as examples for what countries are least racist, then the US would be near the top (high immigrant population and a wide variety of ethnic groups). Don't use evidence that isn't actually evidence.

You also mentioned that most of the Belgian population is half Flemish and half French. Actually, that's Walloon and Flemish, but I'll forgive the oversight. Interestingly, Belgium is a country fixated on that ethnic division. The country is divided into Flemmish and Walloon sections, and it's political system reflects a fixed proportion -- along ethnic lines. While Brussels itself is a third section (mixed), the rest of the country is governed along ethnic lines: Flemmish political institutions govern the Flemmish sections and Walloon political institutions govern their section. That does sound a bit like a country fixated on ethnic divisions to me.

As to what conservative republicans might say. Good point. I don't much like them either. Then again, I also don't like Le Pen (French), Haider (Austria), or De Winter (Belgium), who are ultra-nationalist, right-wing, racist politicians.

I apologize for the harsh words (and lousy english), and yes, I do know its walloon and flemish, I had trouble translating it (walloon and vlaams). As for the "common cultural legacy", I reject that. You cant say that Sweden, Greece and Poland have the same cultural legacy.
As for the anti-semetism in Belgium, its not rising. Its almost like the skinheads and the jewish extremists made peace in order to gang up on the muslims (interesting story: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,59662,00.html) .
I took brussels as an example of a place where people with a different heritage can live together in peace, not as an example of Huxlays "Brave New World", where everyone is the same.

I think that you are focusing alot on the "ethnic"

continued:

"ethnic" aspect of the EU, as the main reason for its existance is economic strength, rather than cultural legacy. A common currency and trade without borders. Those are the areas where the EU has had the most impact. The EU isnt racist or seperationist, how could it be? The whole point of the EU is eliminating borders. If the EU becomes a superpower in the future I doubt it will be as belligerent as the USA.

As for Turkeys membership in the EU, thats got nothing to do with culture, Hungaria, Poland, Greece, arent as screwed when it comes to human-rights and laws as Turkey. Its just a fact, not an arguement. Joining isnt decided on whom you did a favour in the past, but on setting laws and obeying them.

Yen:

First, I wish you'd use a real email address so that we can communicate more openly. And I can understand if you have trouble w/ English (no shame in that). Your first language is Icelandic, I believe?

However, I do think you're still somewhat misinterpreting my position. I agree w/ you, I don't think Europe shares a giant common cultural legacy (the "Western" tradition is too broad to use a common "culture" in any real sense). But many of the people who've presented the case for EU's exclusion of Turkey have used that reasoning. I point it out to demonstrate that it's a false premise. Turkey is as much "European" as Finland, Iceland, Portugal, Russia, or any place else. But why is that country consistently excluded from EU membership? Many people (including public politicians) argue that it's because Turkey is not really "European" -- which seems rather racist to me. That's all my point is.

I also realize that you weren't arguing the Belgium is an example of Huxley's dystopia -- but you did seem to argue that it was a utopia. Your statement about Belgium's ethnic diversity was meant to argue that it's diversity was a mark of racial tolerance. Not only is this a non-sequitor (a logical fallacy), but I'm also familiar enough w/ Belgium politics and politicians (like the rather successful ultra-nationalist De Winters) to know that this is not the case. Here's an article about him from London's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/17/wbelg17.xml

I can't comment on the Wired article you posted, since the link is dead. However, it seems you're also aware of at least some level of skinhead violence in general. I did, however, find these interesting links regarding anti-Semitism (and racism in general) in Europe:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4185_13.asp

Yes, my first language is Icelandic. I lived in Brussels for 5 years. I know that Belgium has problems with nationalism, with parties like Vlaams-Blok. And its not utopia either. But it is a functioning multi-cultural society, and over time these problems will go away. The skinheads are a problem everywhere, even in places like Australia and America, yes even here in Iceland(FÍÞ is the nationalist party here). But they arent influencing the EU in any way.

The wired link should work if you copy/paste it (without that bracket at the end).

You're right, racism and fascism are international diseases. And while ultra-nationalist parties don't yet dominate European politics, I'm troubled by their strength. Haider's party in Austria managed to join the government coalition. Le Pen's showing in the last French elections meant that Chirac (who also played the nationalist card) was the least-offensive choice for the French left. These developments are, indeed, troubling.

I do think that Europe is multicultural. And a success at that, too (despite some problems). My point (if you read the comments from others and my responses to them) wasn't that Europe is a hotbed of racism. Rather, my point was that the phrasing of many Europeans in the way they make wide sweeping generalizations about us "dumb Americans" betrays a bit of xenophobia and bigotry.

Ok, I found the Wired article. I'm somewhat skeptical about it, though, for two reasons.

First, one of the main bodies of evidence used was that these groups (skinheads and extremist Jewish groups) had websites on the same server. That's nothing really odd, since I probably share a server w/ sites from many different groups, many of whom I might vehemently disagree w/.

Second, these sits were down. Thus, we're only left w/ hearsay that A) they existed and B) cooperated w/ each other. I've also found several other news sources making the same claim. None of them, however, mention any of the groups by name, making the claims even more difficult to verify. This is not to say that the information is false, but it does mean that we have no real tangible evidence to support the claim.

Im pretty sure that the rise in anti-semetism isnt coming from the nationalists. This comes from watching what is happening in israel/palestine. The skinheads know that nobody trusts the anti-semetic crap they put forward, so they are trying to take advantage of the fact that many people are scared of muslims. Like in Brussels, many people from marocco are very poor. With poverty comes crime. Many people have been the victims of crimes commited by them (robbed, mugged etc), but instead of looking at the cause, they look for revenge, or even a way to kick them out of the country. And this is the reason for the nationalist support in Europe.
But the anti-semetism, its not coming from the nationalists, Im sure of that.

Well, if anti-Semitism isn't coming from the nationalists, then were is it coming from? And I hope you're not arguing that the Israel-Palestine issue justified anti-Semitism, are you? I may disagree w/ some policies of the Israeli government, but I certainly can't take that out on the entire Jewish people. That would be absurd.