Revels and Hertsgaards Contrasting View on Anti-Americanism - Research Paper Example

?Revel’s and Hertsgaard’s Contrasting View on Anti-Americanism Americans have always regarded themselves as a very fortunate people. Being citizens of what is inarguably the most powerful nation on earth has its obvious advantages. Economically they are better than most countries and they obviously enjoy a higher degree of human and civil rights compared to other societies. Their sense of pride for their country is reinforced by the notion that they belong to a country that holds great economic, political, and cultural influence in almost every part of the globe. Their military is unquestionably the mightiest. However, even as Americans bask in these senses of pride and security, it has also become very apparent that worldwide, there is a growing feeling of loathing or hatred against the United States. This is not just limited to peoples in countries that have historically been at conflict with the U.S., such as Cuba, North Korea, or Iran. Even citizens that have been considered as American allies also have a significant amount of anti-Americanism in them. These include the countries in Europe, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy. Anti-American sentiments grow as the might of the U.S. in the spheres of the economy, politics, culture, military, and international relations increases. At the most simplistic reasoning, this may be considered as just an envious reaction of those who belong to less fortunate countries or societies. However, social scientists and experts in international politics do not explain it that way. Those who belong to the left of the political spectrum see it as a consequence of the hegemonic policies employed by the U.S. in order to enrich it self at the expense of other countries. This argument had a widespread influence in many countries during the Cold War era, which is why apologists for the U.S. easily labeled this as nothing but part of the Soviet or communist propaganda. At the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, it was expected that anti-Americanism would ebb. On the contrary, the sentiment became even more pervasive, as peoples, who once thought of it as mere rhetoric coming from the America’s superpower rival now see more its valid justifications. For instance, American hegemony in the eyes of many in the less developed and developing countries is synonymous to globalization. It is clear that “these anti-globalization concerns are often broader than American dominance, but nonetheless the rhetoric and protests of these movements more often than not single out American multinationals, American influence on the IMF and World Bank, and America’s failure to sign the Kyoto protocol when looking to blame any particular country.” (O’Connor 84) Whether these arguments are valid or not, actually depends on one’s ideological and political persuasions. Jean-Francois Revel and Mark Hertsgaard represent the two basic opposing camps when it comes to analyzing the origin and features of anti-Americanism. Revel’s book Anti-Americanism is essentially a critique of the sentiment. Revel is a philosopher who, unlike many of his famous contemporaries in the French intellectual circle, took a conservative perspective on many issues concerning domestic and local politics. Since he is French, a citizen in a country with a population that has been known to be generally less admiring of the Americans, Revel’s analysis may well be considered as not driven by populism or national bias. Therefore, his arguments could create the impression that it is objective. Hertsgaard, on the other hand, writes from the perspective of the American tourist and traveler. His book The Eagle’s Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World, provides readers a view on how people in different countries develop the antagonistic or, at least, critical attitude toward America. Hertsgaard is admittedly a liberal and his political and ideological perspectives naturally influence his interpretation of the views the non-Americans he encountered. The fact that he is American, who is expectedly to favor the policies that his country employs for the good of its own citizens, and is therefore supposed to be bias for the U.S. only makes his arguments credible to a certain degree. Revel’ Anti-Americanism argues that while there are valid reasons why hatred or criticism on the U.S. arises, many of these have been exaggerated. According to Revel, people who have been misinformed about the actions and policies of the U.S. are more likely to fall into the impression that Americans are not to be trusted or admired in any way. At the same time, political forces, whether secular or religious, have been systematically spreading a campaign of vilification against the U.S. for the purpose of the furthering their own agenda. Anti-Americans everywhere commonly point out to the tendency of the U.S. to practice unilateralism, which it could actually do given its stature in world economy and politics. Revel does not criticize the accusations leveled against the U.S. for its unilateralist tendencies. He even admits that, indeed, America does have the penchant of insisting on others what it perceives as best solutions for global problems. However, anti-Americans have stretched the issue further that it comes to the point when almost every stand or behavior that the U.S. displays is deemed as reflection of its hegemonic or unilateralist tendencies. In this regard, Revel points out that “by criticizing the Americans whatever they do, and on every occasion - even when they are in the right - we Europeans... compel them to disregard our objections - even when we are in the right.” (171) This statement, which is presented in the conclusion, represents the entire essence of his book. Beginning from the very first page, Revel mentions the many cases in which the European media, politicians, and civic leaders, express directly or indirectly there disdain for the actions and decisions made by the U.S., even if they have not really fully grasped the objective conditions and the core motivations of the Americans regarding the issues being tackled. For Revel, at the core of anti-Americanism is people’s ignorance on what he perceives to be the real intentions of the U.S. Such ignorance, however, is not just the product of being uninformed. It is also because dominant political and cultural forces influence the people or the masses with anti-Americanism so they can be mobilized against the U.S. In articulating this, Revel mentions the case of mass demonstrations held in the streets of Muslim countries wherein America is accused of being the Islamic world’s enemy. Revel writes that “some would argue that the Muslim ‘street’ we hear so much about, the street that chants ‘Death to America,’ represents the masses; but since almost no Muslim country is democratic, it is difficult to assess whether protests of this type are spontaneous or state-organized.” (143) From his point of view, anti-Americanism is not just the result of conscious efforts of leaders to put the U.S. in a bad light, it is also the willingness of people to accept it as a truth. Such a conclusion may easily be dismissed as too sweeping. This is because Revel fails to present solid evidence that people in predominantly Muslim countries are actually ignorant of the issues raised against the U.S. It must be pointed out that the “anti-Americanism found among the populations of these states has its roots in unavoidable, inherent ‘rejection’ and ‘hostility.’” (Faath and Mattes 220) At the core of this hostility is the fact that socio-economic conditions allow the emergence of sentiments against the U.S. Revel fails to consider that for as long as such people develop the impression that the U.S. is getting richer at their expense, they will always be hostile to the said country. Revel articulates that being critical of certain U.S. policies does not necessarily mean being anti-American. He admits that America did make many decisions that isolated it from the rest of the world. Other countries may have committed the same errors but because of America’s stature in the global scene, criticisms are magnified several times. What Revel disagrees with though is irrational hatred or disgust on the Americans. This is the kind of anti-Americanism that, for Revel, is common in Europe. Most of Revel’s points of reference, every time he expresses an attack on anti-American attitudes, are based on his observations of Europeans. Considering that Europe has never been seriously affected by hegemonic tendencies, of the U.S., Revel may indeed think that anti-Americanism of the European brand is basically unfounded. Apparently, Revel has not closely studied the kind that peoples in the less developed countries of the Third World have developed through time. Unlike Revel, Hertsgaard bases his observation of anti-American sentiments by his concrete experience while travelling in countries of the Third World. However, being an American himself, he first touches the issue of how his fellow countrymen view the peoples of other countries. According to Hertsgaard, many Americans do not really know much about the world outside of their country, a fact that may have changed significantly after 9/11. He implies that had the terrorist attack not occurred, many Americans would not have heard of Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other country that are suspected of harboring the Al Qaeda and its allies. Hertsgaard writes that until 9/11, a great number of “Americans were barely aware the outside world existed, a fact that both exasperates and amuses foreigners.” (10) On the other hand, with its influence on many cultures worldwide, peoples of different countries feel the necessity of learning much about the U.S. Obviously, there is no reciprocation in the treatment between America and other countries. This gives the impression that Americans are generally aloof people who, conscious of their perceived superiority as a nation, can afford to look down on other countries. Hertsgaard mentions that there are several things that non-Americans commonly think about U.S. Not all these are negative; in fact, the positive ones may indeed boost the pride that Americans may have in their country. This includes the usual praises that the Americans have heard much about their country; that it is fun, that it is land of opportunity and freedom, and that it is where people are guaranteed of a better future. On the other hand, the criticisms raised by people of other countries are that “America is an empire, hypocritical and domineering” and that “it is self-righteous about its democracy.” (Hertsgaard 21) The first criticism is based on what Hertsgaard views as the U.S. attempt to influence global trade and to make it serve its national interests. From Hertsgaard’s perspective, globalization, which originates from the boardrooms of America’s largest corporations, is meant to ensure the dominance of American economic interests in the entire world. In Hertsgaard’s The Eagle’s Shadow, interviews and statements from non-Americans are cited in order to add weight to his arguments. One very striking statement is that of Siphiro Sobuwa who, when commenting on U.S. President Clinton’s request to Nelson Mandela of South Africa to cut ties with Cuba, said that “for someone who did not help our struggle to come now and ask us to distance ourselves from someone who did, that is very arrogant behavior.” (Hertsgaard 76) This is an example of how non-Americans think of the U.S. foreign policy of compelling sovereign countries not just to become friends with them but also to be antagonistic or to cease friendly relations with their enemies. Hertsgaard, however, does not just write about the anti-American sentiments developed by the peoples of other countries that are caused by the U.S. itself. He goes on to expose what he believes are the wrongs of American society. Apparently, this is an attempt to present the internal weaknesses and errors that the country has. To some extent, understanding the social issues within American society may result in the impression that it is not the Americans as a people that other nations must hate or detest but the political and economic elite that dominate the U.S. He writes that the corporations and their allies or puppets in the mainstream political parties are to be blamed for the worsening social inequality in the country. He also explains that these are the two minority segments of American society that are actually giving the country a bad name outside of its borders. These two forces, according to Hertsgaard are “blinded by their ideology of ‘market fundamentalism,’ to borrow financier George Soros's term, an ideology as rigid and all-encompassing as the Islamic fundamentalism they often condemn.” (148) In this regard, Hertsgaard obviously raises the argument that anti-Americanism may just be a reaction of other countries’ to the efforts of American big business and government to establish their position as world powers. Revel’s Anti-Americanism fails in achieving a more dialectical study of the bases of anti-American sentiments in less developed countries. He merely pointed out the weaknesses of arguments in favor of such sentiment. However, his analysis is anchored on superficial and emotional reactions to U.S. policies. He does not see the fact that when people abroad express anti-American sentiments, they really have nothing against the American people. It is the U.S big business, the government, and the military that are the subjects of their opposition and criticism. Where Revel fails, Hertsgaard has been able to profoundly articulate. Hertsgaard rightly explains that the American people are not to be blamed for their government’s and corporations actions on other countries. To some extent, he may have implied that for anti-Americanism to be extinguished, the American people should effect change in their society. It is not just the position the U.S. as a world superpower that the makes other countries hate it. It is because of the actions taken by the U.S. government that put other countries at a disadvantage that make America hated. Nobody would care if a neighbor becomes too powerful just as long as it does not interfere with other people’s business. Works Cited Faath, Sigfrid and Hanspeter Mattes. “Between Anti-Americanism, Criticism of America and Americanism.” Ed. By Sigfrid Faath. Anti-Americanism in the Islamic World. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2006. Hertsgaard, Mark. The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World. New York, NY: Picador, 2003. O'Connor, Brendan. “A Brief History of Anti-Americanism: From Cultural Criticism to Terrorism.” Australasian Journal of American Studies, July 2004. Adelaide, AU: Australia and New Zealand American Studies Association, 2004. Revel, Jean-Francois. Anti Americanism. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2003. Read More