What is "Anti-American"?

[Bob Hubbard]

There is an interesting back story to this question.

Over the last 5 years, I have been called Un-American, and Anti-American, and even a "Traitor" in one case, for my continuing posting of non-mainstream news articles covering everything from civil rights, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, terrorism, election issues, and items critical to the current US administration and the laws it has passed and the actions it ha undertaken these past 5+ years.

So, the question here is, what does it really mean to be "Un-American"?

My reply is that to be Un-American would be to blindly follow those in the seats of power. To accept what they say without question, to not hold them accountable for what they do in our name, with our money, and with our lives.

A major reason why this country was created, was because the concerns of our fore-fathers were not being answered by the government then in power. Their rights were trampled on, their concerns of no interest, and their lives, property and wealth used and abused at the whim of a king. Documents were written that established an evolving central body of belief and hope for a new nation.

I have studied our past, read the thoughts of people like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson, and believe that this country has greatly strayed from their vision, and not is a god way. I believe that it is unAmerican to stay silent, to do nothing, to not get involved. I believe that simply accepting things, to not ask questions, to not demand answers, and to not hold those in office accountable, is to be Un-American.

As to anti-American? I don't know. To me, to be anti-American would be to wish it's demise. To see this once great nation vanish from the face and memory of this world. To see it fall, and become but a memory like the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans so long ago. This, I do not wish for.

The traitors to me, are those who spit on the Constitution, who while holding office complain about how it handcuffs them, and who seek to change it, so that they may more easily hold sway over us, and enrich themselves at our expense.

Those are my thoughts.
What are yours?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

First thought? What it is NOT. Anti-Americanism is NOT disagreeing with government policy or the prevailing view because you feel that such policies will HARM America in the long term. Unfortunately, Talk Radio demagogues would like to make folks believe this is so.

Real Anti-Americanism is wishing harm and destruction upon your country the U.S. - it is not having a different (perhaps misguided, even) vision of what is best for it.

Great question, Bob.

 

[Makalakumu]

I would say that not caring enough to vote is probably the most anti-american thing I can think of.

 

[bydand]

I have studied our past, read the thoughts of people like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson, and believe that this country has greatly strayed from their vision, and not is a god way. I believe that it is unAmerican to stay silent, to do nothing, to not get involved. I believe that simply accepting things, to not ask questions, to not demand answers, and to not hold those in office accountable, is to be Un-American.

Freaudian slip Bob? I think it is a proper way of expressing that thought either way good or God. We have come to rely upon ourself as a country, and that is not what we started out as. Not going to turn this into a god-no god debate, hopefully. On the issue of what is Anti-American I think you hit the nail on the head. This country was basied on the ideal that everybody had a say, one way or the other. On a related note, I would say that another Anti-American issue would be the lack of tolerence between ourselves. I am as quilty of this as the next person, but our own personal views are just that "OUR PERSONAL views" not to shoved down others necks just because we happen to pay taxes to the same government. Not to be taken to the extreme, because no country can survive being extremist for long, but within our "walls" we can bicker, but taken outside in the spotlight of the world media is like airing your personal dirty laundry in your own neighborhood. Don't really have a solution, but those are my thoughts. Anti-American: keeping your mouth shut internally, but running your mouth where it makes other countries think we are weak.

NOT saying, posting articles which make people think and disscus issues is anti-American at all. That is healthy for us to know the internal issues that do effect us.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I'd say the anti-Americans are those who trample on our established rights and won't make the logical conclusions as to what those rights mean. It's easy to point both to the right and the left for many examples of it.

Jeff

 

[Tez3]

May I offer an outsiders view? Coming from a country where it's a national sport to criticise strongly whoever is in power I find it strange that whenever an American criticises or questions their Establishment the word un-American comes up. As far as I know nobody here calls people un-British ( a lot of other things maybe but not that!) A healthy opposition makes for strong governments, everything especially governments, laws and polititicians should feel they are under our scrutiny. It doesn't matter in that respect whose views are right or wrong, the important thing is the debate. To be un-American ( or un any country) I think you would have to wish or be active in wanting to destroy your country, to act in it's worst interests. Using your right to free speech is not unpatriotic!

 

[MBuzzy]

Using your right to free speech is not unpatriotic!

Exactly - there is nothing MORE American than posting your views, questioning things, speaking out for what you think is wrong.

Un-American or possibly Anti-American is when those people who call you those things can actually take away your right to say things, but putting you in jail or silencing you in some way. Unfortunately, the same free speech allows them to say those things. In my opinion, calling someone who voices their opinion un-american is wrong....but still within their rights.

 

[Monadnock]

Anything that infringes on our Constiutional Rights.

Freedom of Speech
Bearing Arms
Freedom of the Press
Privacy
...

All the things that are slowly being wittled away after each and every election.

 

[CoryKS]

Good thread, Bob. And one that is going to require some time to reply. I'll try to write something up this evening. For now, let me say that I believe a good chunk of those that I consider anti-American don't wish for the demise of the country. However, I believe that that would be the logical outcome of their policies. Either that, or the country would be changed so that it in no way resembled anything like America.

 

[heretic888]

Good thread, Bob. And one that is going to require some time to reply. I'll try to write something up this evening. For now, let me say that I believe a good chunk of those that I consider anti-American don't wish for the demise of the country. However, I believe that that would be the logical outcome of their policies. Either that, or the country would be changed so that it in no way resembled anything like America.

And does the America of today resemble the America of 1950?? Of 1920?? Of 1900?? Of the 19th century?? Of the 18th century??

My opinion is that accusing somebody or something of being "Anti-American" (or, my other favorite, "enemy of America") is, for all intents and purposes, a smokescreen used to dismiss an opponent's arguments without actually going through the work of addressing their arguments. It is intellectual dishonesty and duplicity at its finest.

Personally, I think the government officials that are leaking the identities of CIA agents to the media, illegally wiretapping American citizens without judicial warrants, or disregarding both American and international laws concerning the imprisonment and tortue of of detainees are more "Anti-American" than any of the people that usually get that accusation lobbed in their direction.

Laterz.

 

[Monadnock]

If we can successfully define what is "American" we could surely define what is not. So describing something as Anti-American, or Un-American is certainly valid.

 

[mrhnau]

And does the America of today resemble the America of 1950?? Of 1920?? Of 1900?? Of the 19th century?? Of the 18th century??

Nations constantly evolve. So, no, we don't resemble the nation of the past. Part of that is due to technology, part of it is due to the change of man/party politics.

My opinion is that accusing somebody or something of being "Anti-American" (or, my other favorite, "enemy of America") is, for all intents and purposes, a smokescreen used to dismiss an opponent's arguments without actually going through the work of addressing their arguments. It is intellectual dishonesty and duplicity at its finest.

I'll fully agree there.

Personally, I think the government officials that are leaking the identities of CIA agents to the media, illegally wiretapping American citizens without judicial warrants, or disregarding both American and international laws concerning the imprisonment and tortue of of detainees are more "Anti-American" than any of the people that usually get that accusation lobbed in their direction.

Leaking identities - something close to treasonous (even if done by the "most holy" press)

illegal wiretapping - this has been debated before. not illegal to tap foreign phones calls from my understanding. Domestic phone calls, then I'll agree.

detainees - if refering to the Geneva conventions, the point has been made that they don't apply to this situation. Now what torture are you refering to? Someone wearing underwear and taking some pictures? Listening to some music? Being made to lose some sleep? Sounds more like a frat party to me...

Regardless of your opinions on the topics, I think often blame is misplaced. I do however think that while freedom of the press is a good thing, there is still place for secrecy in our soceity, for instance, when the NYT exposed the interception of foreign phone calls, don't you think foreign combatants heard about this? Think they are making alot of non-coded phone calls these days now? Don't you think that is causing problems for the intellgence gathering community? Is the leak person to blame? Or the press that published the story? Perhaps a bit of both in that case...

 

[mrhnau]

What is anti-American? Deliberately pursuing aims against our nation and way of life, through word or deed.

Just a succinct definition. You can bicker about the specifics, but thats a starting point for me.

 

[heretic888]

If we can successfully define what is "American" we could surely define what is not. So describing something as Anti-American, or Un-American is certainly valid.

If you're referring to people, an "American" simply refers to any legal citizen of the United States of America. One is not required to subscribe to certain beliefs or ideologies to retain this position.

 

[lenatoi]

All very good points. I particularly agree with mrhnau about the definition. I do need to say though that I disagree with the statement about not caring enough to vote. I need to say that while I am disapointed to hear about people who do not vote, I am devistated to hear about people who vote without first becoming educated.

 

[heretic888]

Nations constantly evolve. So, no, we don't resemble the nation of the past. Part of that is due to technology, part of it is due to the change of man/party politics.

Which was precisely the point I was making. Complaining that the opposition will "change" America is essentially a non-argument.

Leaking identities - something close to treasonous (even if done by the "most holy" press)

The "most holy" press in this context was pro-Bush journalist Novak.

And I agree that both he and the government officials who leaked the information to him are guilty of treason.

illegal wiretapping - this has been debated before. not illegal to tap foreign phones calls from my understanding. Domestic phone calls, then I'll agree.

I have no problem with legal wiretapping, that is supported under current American law. The issue I have is with the wiretapping of American citizens without judicial oversight.

It is a broader issue, I believe, in the willingness of the current administration to disregard our own laws when they feel it convenient to do so. And, of course, when the critic calls them on this, it is the critic that is accused of being "treasonous" or "unpatriotic". Please.

Nobody in the United States should be above the rule of law. That is what separates us from the likes of Al Queda.

detainees - if refering to the Geneva conventions, the point has been made that they don't apply to this situation. Now what torture are you refering to? Someone wearing underwear and taking some pictures? Listening to some music? Being made to lose some sleep? Sounds more like a frat party to me...

Actually, I was specifically thinking of that Canadian fellow that was never charged with any crimes, yet was imprisoned and tortured (i.e., physically beaten and forced to live in a coffin-sized cell) for over a year.

And, of course, those prisoners at Abu Graihb didn't die from listening to Metallica or not getting enough sleep....

Regardless of your opinions on the topics, I think often blame is misplaced. I do however think that while freedom of the press is a good thing, there is still place for secrecy in our soceity, for instance, when the NYT exposed the interception of foreign phone calls, don't you think foreign combatants heard about this? Think they are making alot of non-coded phone calls these days now? Don't you think that is causing problems for the intellgence gathering community? Is the leak person to blame? Or the press that published the story? Perhaps a bit of both in that case...

Wiretapping (or covert surveillance in general) has been a tool of American law enforcement for decades. Anybody with a computer and an internet connection could find that out in all of five minutes. I doubt Al Queda's leaders are that stupid.

The only thing this leak "exposed" was that the federal government was conducting wiretaps in a way that was in violation of United States law (i.e., without judicial warrants).

Laterz.

 

[CoryKS]

If you're referring to people, an "American" simply refers to any legal citizen of the United States of America. One is not required to subscribe to certain beliefs or ideologies to retain this position.

That is precisely the crux of our disagreement. There has never been a society that did not require certain beliefs of its people. If you think you are free of that responsibility, and act accordingly, perhaps that explains how you might find yourself in a position to be labeled anti-American.

 

[heretic888]

That is precisely the crux of our disagreement. There has never been a society that did not require certain beliefs of its people. If you think you are free of that responsibility, and act accordingly, perhaps that explains how you might find yourself in a position to be labeled anti-American.

Sorry, but you are mistaken.

The United States of America does not require its citizenry to subscribe to certain beliefs, values, or ideologies. To claim otherwise evinces a decided ignorance of American law and its history.

Now, actual behavior is a different thing than intellectual belief --- but, even then, American law tends to protect behavior that does not violate the security or rights of other citizens.

Laterz.

 

[CoryKS]

Sorry, but you are mistaken.

The United States of America does not require its citizenry to subscribe to certain beliefs, values, or ideologies. To claim otherwise evinces a decided ignorance of American law and its history.

Now, actual behavior is a different thing than intellectual belief --- but, even then, American law tends to protect behavior that does not violate the security or rights of other citizens.

Laterz.

Now you've got it. The anti-American label comes in where certain citizens feel that other citizens' behavior does violate their security. You can swear up and down that protest is just the most American thing in th world, but doesn't it creep you out just a bit that bin Laden and Zawahiri are stealing the DNC's talking points?

 

[heretic888]

Now you've got it. The anti-American label comes in where certain citizens feel that other citizens' behavior does violate their security.

The problem is that "feelings" carry little weight under American law.

I may "feel" a dozen things. One of them may be that social conservatives endanger society by propagating a system that creates an economic oligarchy. Another thing I may "feel" is that religious fundamentalists endanger society by propagating an archaic ideology that promotes intolerance and dualism.

But, you know what?? It is still their right to do so, under American law.

You can swear up and down that protest is just the most American thing in th world, but doesn't it creep you out just a bit that bin Laden and Zawahiri are stealing the DNC's talking points?

Not really, but that's probably because they aren't.

In fact, I would say the attempts to conflate social liberals with terrorists is emblematic of the intellectual dishonesty and duplicity that has so mired what passes for public discourse in this country. The subtext is essentially, "Agree with me or you're a terrorist lover."

That many of our citizens really do buy into such garbage speaks volumes about the level of misinformation in our society.

Laterz.