> > > 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.
> >
> Well, you have your parental responsibility to educate your son, but
> there is no evidence that hatred of imperialism or the Bush junta in
> particular translates into hatred of all Americans or even all things
> American, as the term "Anti-American" insinuates. I don't see any
> evident elements of "Anti-Americanism" in the 2/15 global protests.
> I ask Hardt to quit libeling and slandering anti-war protesters.
what the hell? so anti-americanism is resident a) in my son b) in the fantasies of michael hardt [i thought the alphabetical list might make you feel comfortable, less hostile, after all, one learns not to piss off americans too much...]
i can't decide whether or not to be flattered that it's just sean and hardt's imagination or not, so i'll settle for stating the obvious: have you been paying attention to any of the protests outside the U.S.?
the most rabid version of anti-americanism is, yeah, probably automatic hatred of all americans, but (like the anti-intellectualism example) it tends not to work that way, but instead be characterised by generalising norms and the exceptions to them (like people who are pro-marx but con-intellectuals). if americans settle for "it's not anything to do with us, it's the government" well, i think that's at least naive and probably a mistake.
it's not "fair" to think americans *are* or even agree with the bush regime -- of course not -- i'm just saying in a global political sense that's not only what "america" (in the sense of anti-american) looks like, it's what it in effect is. are you in the UN spieling for bombing iraq? no, but "america" is.
will it assuage anything if i say that i recently saw a news bulletin in which the newsreader (supported by the icon over her shoulder) informed australians that "america" had asked us to "help wipe iraq off the map". complaining to the station (which we did, of course) isn't very important/effective, but it is a refusal of what "australia" is doing (as well as "america"). we can't just say it's not about actual australians, because what else is "australia" in these kind of negotiations of nation states.
catherine
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP at ArtsIT: http://admin.arts.usyd.edu.au/horde/imp/