From un-American to anti-american

Published on May 9, 2004 By Jepel In Current Events

From un-American to anti-American

It has probably come to the attention of a lot of people that D. Rumsfeld has been in an uncomfortable position for the last few days. Under the recent pressure, he has almost acted in a decent way, and even issue several apologies, although his resignation is still lost in the fog of war.

As you might have guess, I am not a big fan of Rumsfeld, even if I can appreciate his special and subtle sense of humor from time to time. Nevertheless, I was a bit surprised by the opening of his speech in front of the senate committee.

What Rumsfeld said:

"So to those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of the U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was inconsistent with the values of our nation. It was inconsistent with the teachings of the military, to the men and women of the armed forces. And it was certainly fundamentally un-American."

Full text

Un -american ?!

The problem I have with this extract of the speech, is with the use of the word un-American instead of the word inhuman. Say I'm too much of a human right activist but it seems that torture is first inhuman and have no nationality. But I realized that I didn't know the meaning of un-american I was even thinking that it was a Rumsfeld creation. But I went on my favorite on line dictionary and get the following definition:

un-A·mer·i·can
adj.
Considered contrary to the institutions or principles of the United States.

It was making sense, torture was against the principles of US. French doesn't have word for that concept, there is no un-French. May be it was a Anglo-Saxon thing, thus I looked for un-English:

un-Eng·lish
adj.

Not having the characteristics of British people or practices: The purple shutters on her house had a decidedly un-English look.
Not in agreement with standard English usage.

It has different meaning than un-American, it is about English characteristic, practice or language, nothing against the queen or any institution, principle or policy.

But back to the speech, I couldn't find the word inhuman in, which definition is, by the way:

in·hu·man
adj.

a. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel. b. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.

Doesn't it sound more appropriate, does it?

This is a brilliant demonstration of how to use a dictionary, but what is the point?

I was wondering why Rumsfeld was using this world. Fortunately I came across an article in "Le Monde" that was explaining that the word was first used during the McCarthyism year to define all the hidden enemies, presumably commies. I went even more confused: was Rumsfeld meaning that the torturers were hidden enemies there to do some sabotage of the good work of the US army?

I though also that it was a gross call to the patriotism of american people in a subtle attempt to remind them that US is in war.

I was also wondering if American people torture other American, would it be more or less un-American?

And are inhuman and un-American always exchangeable?

I also start to think that it was also a way to highlight the difference between American principles and any others, and putting American's one at the top. Consequently , American people are first American and second human. So you are first un-American and second inhuman. Thinking of the way everything has been happening for the last three years, I wasn't much surprised anymore by Rumsfeld vocabulary, it was even really typical from him and his family of thinking: the neocon.

In my modest opinion, and with my limited understanding of it, there is a mixture of arrogance, self esteem and naivety carried in the attitude exhibited by Rumsfeld and his friends. Some kind of religious belief in their own superiority over anyone else. Laws, treaties and regulation are just fences to prevent them to accomplish their fate, because they are the elite and they do know. Better than American. Better than non American. Better than all the people not sharing their views.

American complex of moral superiority or the theory of the winners...

The way I picture it, Rumsfeld and co see the world as a kind of strategy game in which US lead the score by far with an impressive and indisputable hegemony spanning in the cultural, economic and military arena. Such success is just fuelling all this philosophy: we have won, so we have clearly higher principles and values, we are superior to everybody and thus we don't need you, neither your advices or your help because you're loser.

The application of this ideology can have really big consequences, notably on foreign policy.

The advantages of such a mentality is that you can feel pretty free to do whatever you think is right. Fences are just there to be jumped on. Morality is not relevant because you are the best and breaking the law is OK as long as no one else know. If everything go smoothly according to your plan, you are in a pretty good tactic position to handle anything.

The inconveniences of this attitude become apparent in hard time, when things start to go wrong and become harder to manage. Mainly, you have been building a wall made of misunderstanding and lack of confidence brick after brick until reaching a state of isolation that the idea of needing help and asking for it is both unbearable and indispensable.

Ultimately, it is a short view method because globalization made the US and the remaining of the world increasingly connected and interdependent. Both need to communicate and to build trusted relationship.

At the moment, anti-Americanism has rocketed everywhere. Europe, Middle-East, South-America, Asia. But Neocon don't listen to their own people so why should they listen to foreigners?

Am I anti-American?

I had always thought that I wasn't because I really have nothing against American people as individual or as a nation. Most of the American i have met were nice and lovely people. I have been in US and I quiet enjoyed it. I love a lot of US cultural product. I also know how much Europe own to US from the last century. More than all this argument, I hate generality as i believe everybody to be different.

A last reading of my dictionary delude me:

an·ti-A·mer·i·can
adj.

Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.

So I guess I'm anti American, because I do have a problem against US current administration and its policies, though not against its people. Before stoning me, please do realize that I'm a foreigner blogging on an American website, I don't spend my time spreading hate and insulting you all the time. I came here because I wanted to practice my English, but also because I was curious about normal American people, the average Joe and the average Joe mentality.

I reckon my deep ignorance about you and your principle. But is the neo con mentality really American? It seems to me that the whole torture story is just another indication how un-American are this ideology. Its contempt for value that I would think are american,such as democracy, law and human right, has been associated to them in a numerous occasion.

Ultimately are the ends justifying all the means?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/07/iraq/main616250.shtml

http://www.yourdictionary.com/

Comments

6969jimbo6969

on May 09, 2004

What a cool post.

I am building a website for ESL writing practice I would love to share with you. I would also appreciate your taking a look at some of my posts, as I think you might find support for your thinking in my thinking, or perhaps, have good critical advice for me. I am also interested in hearing more about the BLOG scene in Europe.

Anyhow, thanks again. I hope you have occasion to check out my essays here and elsewhere on the web. I'm a pretty faithful correspondent if you would like to talk more about writing and politics.

Ciao for now,

Jimbo

Sherye Hanson

on May 09, 2004

Jepel,
Your article is interesting for many reasons, but I can't help thinking that when I grew up, Americans always talked about how arrogant the French were and that visiting Paris was very unpleasant. My experience with the French in France was that most of them were polite and some even very kind to our family. Paris was our favorite city to visit.

As for neo conservatives, I think that most other Americans consider them to be extreme, but at the same time agree with a lot of what they have to say about the rest of the world. Lot of Americans would prefer to stay in their own state and only visit Disneyland or Disney World. Learning a foreign language, going overseas, and living in a foreign country is something that very few Americans would want to do.

Europeans seem to like world travel far more than Americans. Thus we have a much narrower view of the world and see everything through our own eyes. This is both a virtue and a vice.

I know that most Americans are embarrassed about the POW incidents but support the President.

Solitair

on May 10, 2004

Nice article.

I wouldn't be so harsh against Rumsfeld for the use of the word un-American though. For someone who obviously sees the US on a pedestal above the world it must be a horrific shock to have to admit that Americans can fall off that pedestal.

I'll have to remember your quote for the meaning of anti-american next time someone accusses me of being one. Like you I must admit that I am against many of the official poliies of the American government.

Paul.

kingbee

on May 10, 2004

there may not be a french word similar to un-american in construction, but if i understood what ive read about the proposal to disallow clothing or symbols unique to particular religious beliefs in schools, there may be a similar concept. is it accurate to conclude the basis of that proposal is a belief that citizens of france are french first, then members of whatever church or religious belief system they claim?

im not positive that rumsfeld meant un-american as opposed to inhumane. in the context of his apology to the legislators, i understood it as an apology for acts that violate american civil and military law with the implication that our laws (like those of other modern societies) formalize a commitment to fundamental principles such as the essential value and dignity of human beings.

neoconservative is, in my opinion, a marketing term like low-fat whipped cream or lifetime warranty. it means nothing because it can mean whatever the user claims it means. the political stance it supposedly defines is isnt particularly new; the fiscal/domestic/ foreign policies associated with neoconservatives are, for the most part, directly opposite to conventional conservative positions.

Jepel

on May 10, 2004

Thanks for your interests

69jimbo69: I swear I will have a look to your site as soon as I can and let your know my modest feeling about it. What ever I say just do what you feel like.

Sherye: I can understand why you loved Paris, I'm from a city far away from it, but every time I go there I start to understand better why I can be happy to be French. To bounce on your argument of traveling, I had the chance to have parents who liked traveling and wish my brother and me to discover that. For that, I have been quiet lucky. Probably that if everybody would take at least a year to travel around and confront them-self with different culture, the society would be much better. Europe offer quicker opportunities to cross border and visit different country, it is probably an advantage.
Regarding the neo con, I have to admit a lack of deep knowledge about them. The little I know is enough to understand that if we share the same world, we certainly not living on the same planet...

Solitaire: well as I had written, Rumsfeld would be very funny as annoying if he wasn't that annoying, and I don't think he has invented the world and I can understand the reasons he used it then. The article is just about what I was thinking from that. Like you, I have been treated as anti-American on a numerous time, and now I know that it is true and there is nothing to be ashamed about that.

Kingbee: you are right, the French republic consider citizen to be French first and then a believer. In theory, It also considering all men to be human before belonging to a nationality, so there isn't any contradiction here.
I wasn't meaning to say that he opposed inhuman to un-American. I guess that secretary of defense from other country couldn't use the equivalent world due to its non existence.
I don't know too much about them to discuss the detail of their policy, but I agree neo con sound as much marketing than the left third way..

Thanks all for your valuable input.

mike p

on May 10, 2004

I think you're reading to much into the word un-American. It seems to me that it is more precise than inhuman because the crimes that were committed were the result of an all too human lapse in discipline.

It was neither a veiled reference to communists nor patriotism as a defense. He wasn't saying we should get a pass because we're Americans and therefore better than everyone else. The reason I am patriotic is because I believe that we do strive for such a high standard of conduct, and Rumsfeld was expressing shame that these ideals went unrealized.

I think you were on the right track with the dictionary. I recommend that as a less biased reference than le Monde!

Corio

on May 11, 2004

Brilliant post, Jepel!

Jepel

on May 11, 2004

Thanks Corio

Mike and helix: If you reread my post you will see that I'm talking specifically of a school of thinking coming from your country. By no mean, I try to do a generalization. I was just interested in using that angle to talk about that philosophy and I thing it was relevant. Anyway, I am not a specialist in foreign policy and do not pretend so.

However, Mike you could say that my eyes are blinded by "Le monde", I could say that your flag is blinding yours...

Thanks for your comments.

Archimel

on May 11, 2004

The word un-American was, IMO, the most appropriate word Mr. Rumsfeld could have chosen. The treatment of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers was inhuman to be sure. But calling that behavior un-American empasizes how inappropriate it would be to judge all Americans by those despicable acts, in spite of having been committed by Americans. Un-American is a more appropriate term than inhuman because it is unlikely that anyone will choose to define all humans in terms of those terrible actions. It IS likely that some individuals will choose to define all Americans in terms of those same actions. Calling recent sadistic behavior un-American is an obvious attempt to point out the fallacy of over-extending such an association.

Americans are proud of our ideals. We value fairness, respect, love for our neighbor, hard work, creativity, tolerance, honesty, and a million other lofty virtues we aspire to. Those ideals are trampled on by individual Americans every day, but the general American populace sincerely attempts to put American values into practice. We don't call them American values to imply that only Americans hold them dear. If anything, we assume people everywhere value the same virtues. The fact that un-American exists as a word does nothing to raise or lower America's opinion of itself or its ideals, nor does it imply any comparison with the ideals held by other countries. If you were to say that something is un-French, I would immediately understand that to mean that it goes against French ideals and common French values, and I would assume that those ideals are quite similar to American values. The word un-French may not exist in the dictionary, but I wouldn't think twice if I heard it in a conversation. It would come across to me as a very normal word, a very normal thing to say (assuming it fit into the context of the conversation of course). It would be a particularly appropriate choice of word if you were contrasting the behavior of an individual Frenchman with the values typically held by French citizens in general.

I'm just surprised that un-English seems to have a slightly different conotation (although if you read the first definition it really isn't so different - it's just worded differently).

I appreciate that you've kept this discussion civil. However, I can't help but feel the initial post was nothing more than an excuse to say this:

So I guess I'm anti American, because I do have a problem against US current administration and its policies, though not against its people.

I'd also like to address this comment:

Learning a foreign language, going overseas, and living in a foreign country is something that very few Americans would want to do.

Those are common misconceptions that need to be cleared up.

First, it is common for an American to speak more than just English. I speak Spanish and Portuguese myself. Of the ten people I work with, 3 speak Spanish, one speaks Japanese, and one speaks Korean. None of us started to learn a second language until high school or later. Americans are less likely than Europeans to learn a second or third language, but to say it's something "very few Americans would want to do" is far from the truth. I'd guess that between 1/3 and 1/2 speak a second language well enough to hold a conversation.

To say Americans don't travel or live overseas is equally far from the truth. I've lived in Brazil and Switzerland, and visited 10 countries. My sister lives in Norway right now. My brother lived in Mexico and Peru. Those same co-workers I mentioned before have lived in Japan, Korea, Spain, Paraguay, and probably a couple of other countries. If you look at educated Americans, MOST have visited other countries, and many (about 1/4?) have lived outside of the US. International travel isn't exactly rare.

France does have a reputation for being rude, but I was treated very well there. I have been mistreated due to anti-American prejudice in a couple of other countries, but that type of behavior was the exception, not the rule. I was physically assaulted by a man in Switzerland after he found out I was American, but my other experiences in Switzerland helped me to understand that his was very un-Swiss conduct.

Jepel

on May 11, 2004

Archimel: Thanks for you answer and to acknowledme my politness. Nevertheless, allow me to answer:

You right, I'm against american foreign policy, so I'm anti-american. Nothing against any particular individual. If american people are against some policy of their government, this definition would make them automatically anti american. So I guess half of the US population is anti american specially when close to election time.

I have never say that american are not travelling it was coming from someone else. If you want to feel better, french are not big language learner either. they have always been a little bit lazy.

I'm french but I don't consider to be that important, I haven't choose it. it's the place where I have been brought up. In addition french try to marhet it self as the country of the human's right and being french you know that it is quiet inaccurate.

Why america would be different?

My article wasn't about american value against other's value. But I get confused when I hear people like Rumsfekd talking about value that he hasn't obviously practiced.

It remember me a seller who tell you that all the objects you are interrested in, are the best because he own the same.

WiseFawn

on May 17, 2004

Wonderful article. I love dictionaries. I've never bothered to look up anti-American, even though I've been called it on here several times. Our government has much to answer for.
In the seventies, there were bumper stickers everywhere saying America, love or it leave. I guess at this point in my life, I's say America, fix it or give it back!

kingbee

on May 17, 2004

i didnt think this discussion would resurface but i did remember it last nite when i heard someone on tv talking about americans insisting ours is the best country in the world. he compared it to working with someone who showed up every morning and announced he was the best employee in the whole place and how quickly an annoyance becomes unbearable.

Jepel

on May 18, 2004

Thanks both,
you probably have more to ask to Us administration than me. As Us citizem you are entitled to ask questions... more than me..

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!