> >Exactly how is anti-americanism an empty term? Surely (like
> anti-intellectual)
> >it involves using America as a blanket condemnation without needing to pose
> a
> >relevant argument to explain what it means or how it might be at fault?
> >
> Who in the global waves of protests against the war on Iraq -- the
> subject of Hardt's article -- was actually being "Anti-American" in
> the sense of condemning "America" -- the entire country -- in a
> blanket fashion without explaining "what it means or how it might be
> at fault"? Peoples in the world -- including Americans -- were
> protesting _the USG_ -- rather than all Americans -- for planning an
> illegal and immoral preventive war and/or their own national
> government for joining the USG in the planning. The aim of the
> protests couldn't have been clearer. By calling them "Anti-American"
> demagogically, Hardt is engaging in libel and slander.
Well, my son over my shoulder just said "Hell I'm anti-American. I'm anti any imperialist nation that aims to control others for its own benefit". Now this is a slightly less kneejerk version of anti-Americanism than I meant -- it does have *some* reference to "how it might be at fault", but it's still "blanket" enough to be called anti-Americanism, and signs like "Fuck Bush, Fuck America" (and there were a lot of that genre) suggest to me that, at least in Sydney, numerous protestors were ok with even more expansive dismissals.
The real question, I think, is whether the evident elements of anti-Americanism are in fact something the movement can handle well.
Catherine
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP at ArtsIT: http://admin.arts.usyd.edu.au/horde/imp/