dubla:
no, thats not what i said there. what i said was its easy to spot the difference between someone opposing some american policies and a person who seemingly makes a special effort to enthusiastically oppose almost everything america does (this doesnt have to be limited to policies, as in my example about the mission titles). are they criticizing because they feel strongly about this specific policy/action, or do they have a history of generally criticizing all american policies/actions/etc, (and in the case of my example, nit-picking on the most ridiculous aspects just for the sake of nit-picking)?can you generally tell the difference between someone arguing a point they believe in, and someone arguing just for the sake of criticizing/antagonizng/annoying/provoking/etc? if you answered yes, then maybe youll understand what i meant by the question: "do we really need a definition to spot these patterns?".
What you are excluding from consideration is that someone can make seemingly continual criticisms of the USA and NOT be anti-American IF they criticise other countries in a fair and proportionate fashion.
Scale alone means that it is quite easy for someone to do this; America is such a huge country with such massive power that one can.
YOU might feel that someone is being anti-American, but they might just be a liberal of some sort, with no especialy anti-American agenda, quite happy to criticise other countries - but America just gives them more to complain about than Tonga due to its size and importnace.
This is why I think at times the attitude of some Americans towards international criticism boarders on the absurd; "oh, it's so unfair" they gasp; but at the same time they see America as the most important and powerful country in the world, one taking a lead in world politics and acting as the 'policeman' of the world.
OF COURSE THE US WILL GET MORE CRITICISM THAT WAY!
It's jaw-droppingly silly to think otherwise.
If you don't like it, then stop being the most important powerful country in the world. Then your countries actions will have less affect on other countries, those countries will care less about what the US does, and the US will get less criticism.
But I cannot see a way that a country as large and powerful as America can avoid a proportionate amount of criticism; can you dubla?
i used an extreme example to show how ridiculous it is to judge america as a nation based on hollywood fluff. your implication was such a joke, unintentionally, that i had to take a sarcastic jab at it.
if when you say "the USA", you mean the u.s. government, then i would say absolutely not. if by "the USA" you mean trimark pictures (or any other studio), then id say its as normal as anything else that comes out of hollywood, where everything is exagerrated, sensationalized, and made for one purpose: to sell tickets (notice the purpose was not to educate children on american history). judging the united states as a nation based on the decisions of a script writer is a bit of a reach (translation: completey ludicrous).
Life imitates art and art imitates life; if there was no market for films where Americans are portrayed as heros even when they weren't involved, why do they make them? Obviously because they are afraid that no Americans will go and see the movie if it doesn't adjust history to make it interesting to them.
If that isn't a comment on Americans in general, what is? Hollywood thinks Americans are insular, ignorant and vain; you can tell this by what they serve at the local multiplex! The fact such movies are succesful seems to indicate that Americans like the product.
But of course, you think it's a joke and can't even see how screwed-up it is. Of course, when a politician starts saying how such and such a film or such MTV clip corrupts by imprinting on them unhealthy images, or reflects how bad society ispeople give credance to such a claim. When you apply the same logic to decietful jongoistic vanity, it is 'a joke'.
Can't hear the laughter myself.
Why can't Americans take responsibility for being Americans? Isn't it enough to be in the most powerful country in the world? Do we have to keep the level of criticism below that of say, Portugual, before you think its fair?
Here's a cake, a plate, and a fork. Have it and eat it, why don't you?
