Crossing Boundaries
autor:: zgirl
rubrika:: haluze/blbosti
I am a junior, an international student from Slovakia. I have only one more year left at University of San Francisco. Soon, I will have to decide where I would like to continue my studies, the masters program and then, where to spend the rest of my life. Surprisingly, sometimes I feel that Americans have decided already for me. They think that if I try their American dream, certainly I will want to stay here forever. Some even say that there can be nothing better in Slovakia or elsewhere than in USA, even though they have never crossed the border. The essay I read in my class made me think about the reasons for such an attitude.
‘‘The Oblivious Empire’’ written by Mark Hertsgaard is a chapter of the book -The Eagle’s Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World- which explains by various examples why other nations perceive Americans as arrogant and superior. Mark Hertsgaard introduces the topic with a short narrative, in which a London cabbie tells the story about an American tourist, who claimed that everything in Texas was better than in London. The cabbie was also disenchanted with the Texan’s disinterest in other countries.
The author then focuses on September 11, 2001, when USA was attacked by terrorists. Hertsgaard describes various acts of sympathy for Americans rendered by other nations. He claims that although these acts were sincere, the countries haven’t changed their perception of Americans. The opinion of Americans being ignorant and arrogant still remains. Even though foreigners perceived the attack as a horrible unjust tragedy, most of them understood why something like this could happen. They too hate Bush’s ‘infallible’ dictatorship that declares that a foreign country can be, ‘‘either with [them], or with the terrorists’’ (1016). The Author suggests here that the American government is convinced that only the American way is the right way to deal with problems. The scary fact
is that the most Americans agree with this attitude.
The author claims that the problem resides in Americans themselves, who are largely unaware of foreign affairs. They are told by the US government, who the bad guys are, and they don’t try to find more information, for example, the cause of the conflict. For this reason, American citizens don’t understand why they are hated by foreigners. Americans’ explanation is simple, ‘‘the envy our wealth and resent our power’’ (1017).
However, the real reason is that foreigners hate Americans for their superior behavior and use of a double standard. The author gives an example of Bush shunning the obligation of paying for emissions, which is international law, and at the same time, ironically preaching to other countries about their duty to support USA to fight against terrorism. According to Hertsgaard, Americans feel no obligation to follow international law, but on the other hand, other countries need to accept their rules.
Hertsgaard says that American government no more simply exercises the policy of isolation; now, they rather take the position of a superpower, which has a right to dictate to others. Before, American government tried to separate America from the rest of the world, but now they want to gain global control. Mark Hertsgaard gives as an example of this new policy Bush’s refusal to cooperate internationally to stop bioterrorism, when he rejected the request of, ‘‘international inspections of potential weapons production site’’(1019). However, on the other hand, Bush was willing to apply the inspection to other countries, such as Iraq. The American government rationalizes its double standard through a self-proclaimed enlightened point of view; they just know what the best is for everybody. The author believes that if Americans knew what is behind all those fake moral phrases, they wouldn’t agree with their own foreign policy.
In the second half, Hertsgaard shifts readers’ attention to historical events that
confirm, and furthermore reinforce his previous claims. For instance, he describes the situation in South Africa, in which Americans at first supported racial aggression, and then in a few years, asked Africans not to maintain relationships with Cuba. Although the American government knew that Cubans helped Africans in their liberation struggle times, while the US did not, they still had the nerve to come and ask Africans to betray their ‘friend’.
Another example shows how the American government thinks that they have the right to rule not only their own country, but also to interfere with other countries’ internal governance. There is evidence that the CIA ordered a coup which killed thousands of people, and instituted the ‘right’ person, General Augusto Pinochet, to government; which means that the American government is responsible for 17 years of dictatorship in Chile.
Another example shows Americans’ hypocrisy, their deep moral intention to help solve injustice around the world, with just a few exceptions. If there is a chance of gaining some benefit, for instance access to oil, in such cases tyranny and dictatorship is excused and glossed over. Everyone, but the American citizens know that Washington supported Philippines’, Indonesian’s and Cambodian’s tyrants.
According to the author, Americans made their own definition of terrorism, in which terrorism is only done to them, but Americans never terrorize others. The definition of terrorism puts US citizens always in a position of innocent victims. However, the book called Problem from Hell written by Samantha Powers reveals that this statement is false. The truth is that Washington participates in terrorism by not taking action against numerous
genocides performed in Cambodia, Bosnia or Rwanda, all this on purpose.
Hertsgaard concludes the article by describing how the CIA supported Osama bin Laden for years until he turned against the USA. According to the author these practices of
American governments just trigger a never ending cycle of conflicts.
In my opinion, Hertsgaard’s argument, American government is acting as a superior ruthless superpower, is well supported by both historical facts and modern policy. I agree with his perception of Americans that claims that most of them behave superior towards foreigners. His short narrative based on personal experience at the beginning of the essay helps the reader create a picture of how some Americans represent their own country abroad, and what foreigners think about such behavior.
On the other hand, I would argue that the only reason why foreigners hate Americans is because of their foreign policy. In my opinion, these days at least in Europe to hate Americans has become almost a trend. Everyone hates them and some people don’t even know why. If you ask them about what Americans do for example in Iraq, they can’t answer you. They just know they do something bad in the world, but foreigners like Americans are not interested closely in foreign affairs. Sometimes I ask people in Europe who hate Americans if they have ever been to the USA. Most of them have never been there, and they would never want to visit it, even if they had a chance. However, then I don’t understand how they can hate something they have never seen in person, something they have never tried. Some of them have never even talked to an American citizen and couldn’t support from experience that Americans really are superficial and arrogant people.
Therefore, all the information about American superiority and arrogance must come from the media. These factors shape their opinion. These people follow them same as Americans follow their own media, who dictates who the bad guys are now. Sometimes I feel that the hate towards Americans is so strong that people in Europe don’t have a choice to
choose their own opinion. To like Americans is perceived almost as a betrayal of your own
country. This leads the argument into a conclusion that not all foreigners dislike Americans for their foreign policy, but some of them are guilty of disinterest in foreign affairs and of following the opinion shaping media just as Americans do.
On the other hand, I would also argue that not all the nations and individuals hate Americans and their foreign policy. There are still some countries and some individuals that love and admire everything that originates from the USA. In the political sphere, some governments even though are able to see the background of Washington’s acts; they don’t really care about its morality. They rather agree with everything that comes from the White House because they see potential benefits that can be gained from their friendship. Seeing the huge power that the USA has, they decide to obey, be on the side of the leading superpower, rather than to be its enemy.
There are also still some individuals who don’t see the evil purposes of the US government’s acts, to gain the control over every nation, and just blindly follow the American dream that has been moved from America to their own cultures through McDonald’s, American music, hair style….These individuals are the same self interested ignorant people as some Americans are. They don’t care about anything, mainly not about foreign policy; they are interested only in materialistic goods and their own comfort. When Hertsgaard says: ‘‘I doubt that a majority of us would support such hypocrisy if we were truly aware of it’’ (1019), I think the same sentence can be applied to foreigners too. If they knew the means that America uses to achieve its power and glamour, all the killing of innocents, hiding, manipulating, threatening, controlling…they wouldn’t be so optimistic and willing to accept everything that USA has to offer.
So, if it is the truth that not only Americans but foreigners too are ignorant and superior, then why did the author choose to criticize Americans? No one cares and writes an article about superior behavior of Slovaks, because its attitude doesn’t affect
anyone. Their arrogant behavior couldn’t threaten anybody. The author picked Americans, because they have their 15minutes of fame now, enormous power that enables to control and threaten other nations.
I agree with Hertsgaard’s argument that most of Americans behave arrogantly towards foreigners but on the other hand, they are not the only ones. There are people outside of the USA that would never leave their own country and experience a different culture abroad. They think their own country must be the best, and therefore; the world across the border doesn’t worth their interest. When I think about my life after graduation from USF, some Slovaks ask me with the confusion in their face, ‘‘what can be better than life in Slovakia?’’ I give them advice: ‘‘you have to cross the border and find out yourself. Travel is the antidote for prejudice.’’
Works Cited
Hertsgaard, Mark. ‘‘The Oblivious Empire.’’ The Eagle’s Shadow: Why America Fascinates
and Infuriates the World. New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002. 1015-1026.
‘‘The Oblivious Empire’’ written by Mark Hertsgaard is a chapter of the book -The Eagle’s Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World- which explains by various examples why other nations perceive Americans as arrogant and superior. Mark Hertsgaard introduces the topic with a short narrative, in which a London cabbie tells the story about an American tourist, who claimed that everything in Texas was better than in London. The cabbie was also disenchanted with the Texan’s disinterest in other countries.
The author then focuses on September 11, 2001, when USA was attacked by terrorists. Hertsgaard describes various acts of sympathy for Americans rendered by other nations. He claims that although these acts were sincere, the countries haven’t changed their perception of Americans. The opinion of Americans being ignorant and arrogant still remains. Even though foreigners perceived the attack as a horrible unjust tragedy, most of them understood why something like this could happen. They too hate Bush’s ‘infallible’ dictatorship that declares that a foreign country can be, ‘‘either with [them], or with the terrorists’’ (1016). The Author suggests here that the American government is convinced that only the American way is the right way to deal with problems. The scary fact
is that the most Americans agree with this attitude.
The author claims that the problem resides in Americans themselves, who are largely unaware of foreign affairs. They are told by the US government, who the bad guys are, and they don’t try to find more information, for example, the cause of the conflict. For this reason, American citizens don’t understand why they are hated by foreigners. Americans’ explanation is simple, ‘‘the envy our wealth and resent our power’’ (1017).
However, the real reason is that foreigners hate Americans for their superior behavior and use of a double standard. The author gives an example of Bush shunning the obligation of paying for emissions, which is international law, and at the same time, ironically preaching to other countries about their duty to support USA to fight against terrorism. According to Hertsgaard, Americans feel no obligation to follow international law, but on the other hand, other countries need to accept their rules.
Hertsgaard says that American government no more simply exercises the policy of isolation; now, they rather take the position of a superpower, which has a right to dictate to others. Before, American government tried to separate America from the rest of the world, but now they want to gain global control. Mark Hertsgaard gives as an example of this new policy Bush’s refusal to cooperate internationally to stop bioterrorism, when he rejected the request of, ‘‘international inspections of potential weapons production site’’(1019). However, on the other hand, Bush was willing to apply the inspection to other countries, such as Iraq. The American government rationalizes its double standard through a self-proclaimed enlightened point of view; they just know what the best is for everybody. The author believes that if Americans knew what is behind all those fake moral phrases, they wouldn’t agree with their own foreign policy.
In the second half, Hertsgaard shifts readers’ attention to historical events that
confirm, and furthermore reinforce his previous claims. For instance, he describes the situation in South Africa, in which Americans at first supported racial aggression, and then in a few years, asked Africans not to maintain relationships with Cuba. Although the American government knew that Cubans helped Africans in their liberation struggle times, while the US did not, they still had the nerve to come and ask Africans to betray their ‘friend’.
Another example shows how the American government thinks that they have the right to rule not only their own country, but also to interfere with other countries’ internal governance. There is evidence that the CIA ordered a coup which killed thousands of people, and instituted the ‘right’ person, General Augusto Pinochet, to government; which means that the American government is responsible for 17 years of dictatorship in Chile.
Another example shows Americans’ hypocrisy, their deep moral intention to help solve injustice around the world, with just a few exceptions. If there is a chance of gaining some benefit, for instance access to oil, in such cases tyranny and dictatorship is excused and glossed over. Everyone, but the American citizens know that Washington supported Philippines’, Indonesian’s and Cambodian’s tyrants.
According to the author, Americans made their own definition of terrorism, in which terrorism is only done to them, but Americans never terrorize others. The definition of terrorism puts US citizens always in a position of innocent victims. However, the book called Problem from Hell written by Samantha Powers reveals that this statement is false. The truth is that Washington participates in terrorism by not taking action against numerous
genocides performed in Cambodia, Bosnia or Rwanda, all this on purpose.
Hertsgaard concludes the article by describing how the CIA supported Osama bin Laden for years until he turned against the USA. According to the author these practices of
American governments just trigger a never ending cycle of conflicts.
In my opinion, Hertsgaard’s argument, American government is acting as a superior ruthless superpower, is well supported by both historical facts and modern policy. I agree with his perception of Americans that claims that most of them behave superior towards foreigners. His short narrative based on personal experience at the beginning of the essay helps the reader create a picture of how some Americans represent their own country abroad, and what foreigners think about such behavior.
On the other hand, I would argue that the only reason why foreigners hate Americans is because of their foreign policy. In my opinion, these days at least in Europe to hate Americans has become almost a trend. Everyone hates them and some people don’t even know why. If you ask them about what Americans do for example in Iraq, they can’t answer you. They just know they do something bad in the world, but foreigners like Americans are not interested closely in foreign affairs. Sometimes I ask people in Europe who hate Americans if they have ever been to the USA. Most of them have never been there, and they would never want to visit it, even if they had a chance. However, then I don’t understand how they can hate something they have never seen in person, something they have never tried. Some of them have never even talked to an American citizen and couldn’t support from experience that Americans really are superficial and arrogant people.
Therefore, all the information about American superiority and arrogance must come from the media. These factors shape their opinion. These people follow them same as Americans follow their own media, who dictates who the bad guys are now. Sometimes I feel that the hate towards Americans is so strong that people in Europe don’t have a choice to
choose their own opinion. To like Americans is perceived almost as a betrayal of your own
country. This leads the argument into a conclusion that not all foreigners dislike Americans for their foreign policy, but some of them are guilty of disinterest in foreign affairs and of following the opinion shaping media just as Americans do.
On the other hand, I would also argue that not all the nations and individuals hate Americans and their foreign policy. There are still some countries and some individuals that love and admire everything that originates from the USA. In the political sphere, some governments even though are able to see the background of Washington’s acts; they don’t really care about its morality. They rather agree with everything that comes from the White House because they see potential benefits that can be gained from their friendship. Seeing the huge power that the USA has, they decide to obey, be on the side of the leading superpower, rather than to be its enemy.
There are also still some individuals who don’t see the evil purposes of the US government’s acts, to gain the control over every nation, and just blindly follow the American dream that has been moved from America to their own cultures through McDonald’s, American music, hair style….These individuals are the same self interested ignorant people as some Americans are. They don’t care about anything, mainly not about foreign policy; they are interested only in materialistic goods and their own comfort. When Hertsgaard says: ‘‘I doubt that a majority of us would support such hypocrisy if we were truly aware of it’’ (1019), I think the same sentence can be applied to foreigners too. If they knew the means that America uses to achieve its power and glamour, all the killing of innocents, hiding, manipulating, threatening, controlling…they wouldn’t be so optimistic and willing to accept everything that USA has to offer.
So, if it is the truth that not only Americans but foreigners too are ignorant and superior, then why did the author choose to criticize Americans? No one cares and writes an article about superior behavior of Slovaks, because its attitude doesn’t affect
anyone. Their arrogant behavior couldn’t threaten anybody. The author picked Americans, because they have their 15minutes of fame now, enormous power that enables to control and threaten other nations.
I agree with Hertsgaard’s argument that most of Americans behave arrogantly towards foreigners but on the other hand, they are not the only ones. There are people outside of the USA that would never leave their own country and experience a different culture abroad. They think their own country must be the best, and therefore; the world across the border doesn’t worth their interest. When I think about my life after graduation from USF, some Slovaks ask me with the confusion in their face, ‘‘what can be better than life in Slovakia?’’ I give them advice: ‘‘you have to cross the border and find out yourself. Travel is the antidote for prejudice.’’
Works Cited
Hertsgaard, Mark. ‘‘The Oblivious Empire.’’ The Eagle’s Shadow: Why America Fascinates
and Infuriates the World. New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002. 1015-1026.
napísanísané:: 17.6.2008
prečítalo:: 1469 ludí