[idjeff]

I was doing a Google search and stumbled upon this article. It's a little long.

http://www.theamericanenterprise.org...cle_detail.asp

I don't want to come across as an "arrogant american", but I felt there was some truth to it. What do the rest of you think?

[nath]

About TAE
Thousands of conservative activists, local leaders, congressmen, state and federal judges, writers, researchers, military officers, and business executives read us… Lots of non-conservative readers enjoy and respect us too (sometimes with one eyebrow raised).

(or whilst rolling around on the ground laughing)

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by nath

(or whilst rolling around on the ground laughing)

Glad you're getting a good laugh

What about the article though....agree? disagree? valid points? full of $hit?

[Doofy]

Lots of truth in that article.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

(or whilst rolling around on the ground laughing)

nath, don't be a fool. The American Enterprise Institute didn't write those articles. They are abstracts republished by TAE for its readers. The top article is by Jean-Francois Revel, a well-known French political writer. His book L’obsession anti-américaine (published in English as Anti-Americanism) was a bestseller in France and internationally. He's a highly published French writer who lives in Paris and who writes for a French and international audience.

From Publishers Weekly
In 1972, Revel shocked the world with his best-selling book, Without Marx or Jesus, in which he defended America against global denunciation. Thirty years later, Revel is back with the same purpose. His latest book, a bestseller in France, comes at a crucial time. It seeks to explain the root cause of the world's and particularly Europe's obsession with hating America. He does not pretend that America is perfect. But he argues that the daily denunciations exceed the bounds of reasonable criticism. Furthermore, Revel says, European critics are quick to point fingers when they should be looking in the mirror. Rather than mock America's 2000 presidential election, he notes, Europeans should have been examining their own abysmally run European Union. He attributes such inconsistencies to Europeans' desperate desire to "project our faults onto America so as to absolve ourselves." Revel further finds fault with the antiglobalization movement. Though the movement claims to oppose inequality and poverty in underdeveloped countries, its true anathema is liberal capitalism, whose chief representative is the United States. The barrage of attacks will make it impossible for the United States to confer with European officials or take any criticism seriously. It is in Europe's interest, Revel says, to put aside its envy and consider a more constructive relationship with the United States. As a French citizen, the author laments the sorry state of his home country; he believes that careful consideration of American principles will strengthen Europe. Revel writes with a style at once informative and incisive. He possesses a sarcastic wit that is undoubtedly as irritating to his critics as it is endearing to his supporters.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

The other author, Dr. Fouad Ajami, is one I haven't read and am not familiar with. However, the footnote says the following about him:

Fouad Ajami is the Majid Khadduri professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. This is excerpted from the September/October issue of Foreign Policy.

That should tell you he is a heavyweight. The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies is one of the two top specialized international relations in the United States (the other is my almer mater, The Walsh School of Foreign Service). SAIS, SFS, and the London School of Economics are generally reckoned to be the top three international relations schools in the world. He's obviously an eminent scholar in his field. Here is what his SAIS bio says:

Fouad Ajami
Majid Khadduri Professor; Director of the Middle East Studies Program

Areas of Expertise:
Middle East; Persian Gulf; Iran; Iraq; OPEC; international relations; Islamic religion, culture and law

Background and Education:
Former faculty member of Princeton University’s Department of Politics and fellow at Princeton’s Center of International Studies; former research fellow at The Lehrman Institute; recipient of the five-year MacArthur Prize Fellowship in the arts and sciences in 1982; contributing editor to U.S. News & World Report and member of the editorial board of Foreign Affairs; consultant to CBS News; fluent in Arabic; Ph.D., political science, University of Washington

Publications:
The Dream Palace of the Arabs: A Gener-ation’s Odyssey (1998); Beirut: City of Regrets (1988); The Vanished Imam: Musa Al-Sadr and the Shia of Lebanon (1986); The Arab Predicament: Arab Political Thought and Practice Since 1967 (1981; revised edition in 1992); frequent contributor on Middle Eastern issues and contemporary international history to The New York Times Book Review, Foreign Affairs, The New Republic and other journals and periodicals

Second, Dr. Ajami's article, excerpted by TAE, is published in Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy is published by the Carnegie Institute for International Peace, and is a highly respected academic journal.

You can't criticize these people as American right wing extremists.

[Millennium]

"Ameriphobes"?

Ahem. This was a fairly poorly-written angry rant. However, I can't deny that there's some truth in this article. If you take it as a potrayal of the way Americans see the way that others see them, it's a little simplistic but actually fairly accurate. It does use the phrase "anti-American" way too often, though.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Millennium

"Ameriphobes"?

Ahem. This was a fairly poorly-written angry rant. However, I can't deny that there's some truth in this article. If you take it as a potrayal of the way Americans see the way that others see them, it's a little simplistic but actually fairly accurate. It does use the phrase "anti-American" way too often, though.

The "Ameriphobes" word is used by Revel, a Frenchman. How can it possibly be a "potrayal of the way Americans see the way that others see them" when it wasn't written by an American?

Poorly written? Well, its an abstract of a book written in French and then translated into English. I recall the translation being a bit clunky in places.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The "Ameriphobes" word is used by Revel, a Frenchman. How can it possibly be a "potrayal of the way Americans see the way that others see them" when it wasn't written by an American?

Because Americans (mostly Republicans I think) do agree with him!

I always thought you would be a bit more intelligent than the rest of your fellows here to only be able to think in binary or black&white!?
Are you really surprized that not all french think the same about the US?

I am pretty aware that not all Americans hate Europe (especially Germany and France), want to nuke everybody who disagrees with them and think that they're the best human beings on this planet...

Wake up! The light on this earth comes from the sun and there are all shades of color!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by badidea

Because Americans (mostly Republicans I think) do agree with him!

I always thought you would be a bit more intelligent than the rest of your fellows here to only be able to think in binary or black&white!?
Are you really surprized that not all french think the same about the US?

I am pretty aware that not all Americans hate Europe (especially Germany and France), want to nuke everybody who disagrees with them and think that they're the best human beings on this planet...

Wake up! The light on this earth comes from the sun and there are all shades of color!

The abstract of Revel's book is being criticized as a "potrayal of the way Americans see the way that others see them." In fact, the book is written by a Frenchman. The criticism is therefore misplaced.

Now, if Millennium had criticized it as a portrayal of how a Frenchman sees the way his countrymen see Americans, and a portrayal with which many Americans agree, then that might be a valid criticism. But "a potrayal of the way Americans see the way that others see them" is not a valid criticism because Revel, as a Frenchman, cannot write as an American. He can only write as a Frenchman. Whether or not Americans reading his words agree with him cannot change the fact he isn't himself an American.

Or is this too subtle and nuanced for you to understand?

And yes of course, many Frenchmen do agree with Revel, which is something that Americans who are criticize other Americans for pointing out European Anti-Americanism should bear in mind. Anti-Americanism is a subject interesting enough to the French that they pushed Revel's books (now two of them) to the bestseller lists. It's obviously not as ficticious a subject as is sometimes wrongly supposed.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Or is this too subtle and nuanced for you to understand?

Yes, especially when it's written in english!

I still stand by my point though! If someone (french, english, german or chinese...) writes "a potrayal of the way Americans see the way that others see them" and Americans agree with that, it doesn't matter anymore who wrote it because then the writer just got it right and that's the way Americans (the ones who agreed with the writer) see the way others see them!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by badidea

Yes, especially when it's written in english!

I still stand by my point though!

Your point? Your point seems to be to defend a comment that dismissed (or at least devalued) Ravel's observations because he's an American. Only, factually, he's not an American, he's French. Who agrees with him is irrelevant.

Most importantly, Revel didn't write "a potrayal of the way Americans see the way that others see them." He wrote a book about Anti-Americanism in France. It's a book by a Frenchman about his countrymen written for his countrymen, and published in French in France. That Americans might also read it is irrelevant to the content of the book, or the author's perspective.

[nath]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Glad you're getting a good laugh

What about the article though....agree? disagree? valid points? full of $hit?

Yeah, it had some valid points. Not what you would call balanced tho.