On 8/15/06, Wojtek Sokolowski <<a href="mailto:sokol@jhu.edu">sokol@jhu.edu</a>> wrote:<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> [WS:] As to the hatred, however, I do think that it is an expression of anything other than popular ignorance and picking on easy targets.  My impression is that most people abroad, even educated ones, might have HEARD of the US, but very few actually KNOW something about it.  One cannot hate (or desire) what one does not know.  As a result, the US has been singled out and serves as Rorschach blots that attract popular attention and invite audiences to project their fears and expectations. Wojtek </blockquote></div> JM: This seems a little less than half-correct.  Woj why is your explanation for so much of what you say "popular ignorance"? It seems to be something of a religion with you, the ignorance and the stupidity of the great unwashed.  Truly, if you could be honest, I would be curious to know the personal history for this religion of yours?  Were you beaten up by mobs of peasants with pitch-forks in your youth?  No matter.  Take a little time to think about the above at least in regards to relative ignorance of the world.  Does a person living a in a _favela_ in Rio de Janeiro know more about the United States than a person living in a trailer-park north of Schenectady, New York know about Brazil?  From my experience with both places I am pretty sure, on average, that the people in Rio de Janiero, even the poorest people, know more about "us" than we know about "them".  This is also true of similar experiences I have had with people in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Norway & Sweden.  In fact, I found that middle class, college educated people in Norway & Sweden tended to know more about the U.S. government, and U.S. policies in Latin America and the Middle East than a similar class of people in the U.S. Some of it was a bit to doctrinaire and cliche for my taste but it wasn't wrong.  It was informed knowledge even if not intricate knowledge.   I think it is pretty easy to propose reasons for this situation.  Perhaps it is actually this kind of knowledge about the U.S. and U.S.G. policies that is often called "anti-Americanism" by our commentators.  I once met a farmer in El Salvador, a leader in a local cooperative, who asked me why the U.S. government murders so many people and sponsors terrorism against Cuba and Nicaragua, not to mention his own country.   Such talk would be called "anti-American" by our commentators.  But he went on to ask me why are there are only two political parties in the U.S. and why both of them seem to want to destroy his cooperative.  He asked, me why we north Americans can't get more involved in our politics to stop the murders. He asked why we couldn't control our banks and businesses so that they stopped forcing his people off their land.  As far as I could tell this man, a generation older than me and without formal schooling, had as "sophisticated" view of the U.S. as many of my fellow citizens have of our own country.  I think out of necessity.  He was "political", and, except for the local National Guard unit, as far as he could tell, the biggest impact "politics" had on his life were political and economic policies that had their origins in the U.S.  This does not mean that he had a deep knowledge of the U.S. but he did seem to know a little bit.  It also came out that he had a nephew in Los Angeles, who sent money back home to mama (the speaker's sister) and occasionally the nephew came home.  How many United Statsians have the opportunity or compelled by necessity to get to know anything about Central America in the way many Central Americans know bits and pieces about the U.S.?  Also notice, in this case, that what the average United Statesian commentator would call "anti-American" is not at all a form of "anti-Americanism."  Now none of this means that the people I have known well (mostly in Central America, Brazil, and Norway) "know" the U.S. the way say a modern de Tocqueville would know the U.S.  But the middle class people in these countries can't avoid the image that the U.S. presents of itself.  I go to Brazil and I can't get away from Hollywood movies, radio stations that play rap and rock, and CNN.  I think one can say as a general rule one part of the asymmetry of imperial domination, in all times and all places, is that the average person in the dominated country comes to know the culture and society of the imperial country more than vice-versa.  Basically, people in other countries need to know about the U.S. more than we need to know about them.  They have to  interpret "our" culture in one way or another, because it is part of "their" consumer society.  They have to know a little about our politics because often "our" bombs fall on their heads, and "our" banks mortgage their country. This doesn't mean that they get it "right".  In fact I would think that this "forced", but partial familiarity inevitably breeds contempt, because it is something that is impossible to get away from.   It is easy for me, living in New York or St. Louis to get away from Brazil.  I just change the channel if Jobim comes on the radio and don't seek out Brazilian movies or the numerous Brazilian restaurants and clothing stores that are popping up in Astoria, Queens, where I now live.  But when I was in Rio, it was nearly impossible for me to get away from the U.S.  This is why I think that in general you are less than half right, both in your resort to "popular ignorance" and your attribution of why "they" hate us. Jerry