No Anti-American Bias

Nice try, but it doesn't really contradict my point. All the nations and empires did "questionable things" (still do in many cases) - the fact that one was more successful doesn't really change that. Top dog is resented, like I said.

Including, if I may, the victims.
 
Nice try, but it doesn't really contradict my point. All the nations and empires did "questionable things" (still do in many cases) - the fact that one was more successful doesn't really change that. Top dog is resented, like I said.
Do you think it's just because it's "The Top Dog" or because it has a more agressive (at least in quantity, although also probably in quality) foreign affairs policy - sustained over a long time?
 
Do you think it's just because it's "The Top Dog" or because it has a more agressive (at least in quantity, although also probably in quality) foreign affairs policy - sustained over a long time?

Was Britain top dog because it was aggressive, or because it was economically and industrially the most successful for most of the era? Likewise America? Obviously Britain was pretty aggressive, but was hardly alone in that respect. It's hard to say that smaller states wouldn't have done the same with the same resources Britain possessed. In any case, my statement was intended to imply both - that the hatred was motivated by success and by repeated aggressive actions on the part of the successful empire.

The two go hand-in-hand - it's hard to build an empire without making a lot of enemies.
 
Was Britain top dog because it was aggressive, or because it was economically and industrially the most successful for most of the era? Likewise America? Obviously Britain was pretty aggressive, but was hardly alone in that respect. It's hard to say that smaller states wouldn't have done the same with the same resources Britain possessed. In any case, my statement was intended to imply both - that the hatred was motivated by success and by repeated aggressive actions on the part of the successful empire.

The two go hand-in-hand - it's hard to build an empire without making a lot of enemies.


And the resultant "anti-ism thus breaks down into motivations of

1 actual or percieved injuries

2 envy


Here is a question: If Mexico had boomed economically to the point it was the Japan of an ATL, would there be more or less anti-americanism in the country; assuming OTL territory losses.

IMO no because with less of a disparity between the two economies there would be less of envy to fuel history based resentments.
 
(And it used Trotskyism as an example of "negative nationalism", which is more laughable. Apparently political dissent is negative nationalism if done by leftist groups.)

Have you actually read the essay? It refers to Trotskyists' attitude towards the Soviet Union. Read the damn thing before jumping to conclusions.

Nice thing to belive, but you could just begin to research how the "Top Dog" became Top Dog and what he did to maintain that status and, all of a sudden, a lot a reasons begin to surface

How many people do you think actually do any research? The most anti-American person I've ever met understood very little about the US. Her hatred was motivated by chauvinism, thinly-veiled racism and not-so-thinly-veiled envy.

There are many perfectly valid reasons to oppose America, but the people who take that opposition to dangerous heights care very little for those reasons, if at all. Their buttons are quite different. You shouldn't worry about the teen in Cairo who hates America because it occupies Iraq, you should worry about his cousin who hates America because women there "act like sluts". The former will grow up to be a reasonable person, the latter could become the next Osama.
 
You can probably never completely do away with anti-Americanism or anti-American bias, as there is sentiment against every nationality. However, there are several PODs which would greatly reduce it:

1. Get rid of America: Rome discovers and colonizes America, and either lasts perpetually or breaks up later than it did in OTL. As a result, America experiences a Classical and Medieval Age, as well as a rennaisance. Of course this would require the Romans to have much better seafaring tech than they did in OTL, when it wasn´t until 1434 that a European navigator rounded Cape Borjador (a protrusion on the coast of Morocco). A Roman America would also butterfly away almost all of history as we know it.

2. Get rid of American exceptionalism. This grates on the nerves of non-Americans to no end, and is the cause of much of the self-righteous rhetoric of American politicans, as well as the perception that Americans are arrogant. However, American exceptionalism is so deeply ingrained in American culture that it´s difficult to imagine it without it. For American exceptionalism to not exist, the american revolution would probably have to fail, which would create an America and a world very different than the one we know.

3. Get rid of the Cold War: the conduct of the United States during the Cold War, as well as the efforts that the USSR, Cuba, and leftist intellectuals worldwide dedicated to discrediting the United States and publicizing its worst traits and actions, are responsible for much, if not most, of the anti-Americanism in the world. Maybe Britain wins Gallipoli, World War I ends in early 1917, and the British Empire remains top dog into the 22nd century. Maybe stalin rather than FDR dies in April 1945. That might be all it would take for the cold war to not arise, or at least to be much less cold.
 

HueyLong

Banned
Have you actually read the essay? It refers to Trotskyists' attitude towards the Soviet Union. Read the damn thing before jumping to conclusions.

I read the essay when he posted the link to it. Its still a laughable example of negative nationalism because Trotskyism was political dissent towards the Soviet Union based on the political system in place, not some irrational hatred of some specific nation. It was not negative nationalism, it was political dissent.
 
I read the essay when he posted the link to it. Its still a laughable example of negative nationalism because Trotskyism was political dissent towards the Soviet Union based on the political system in place, not some irrational hatred of some specific nation. It was not negative nationalism, it was political dissent.

First of all, opposing a foreign government is not political dissent, and it's pretty obvious that most of the world's Trotskyists lived outside the Soviet Union.

Second of all, irrational feelings can mix with even the most justified opinions and there's no rule that someone who opposes a totalitarian state must be completely reasonable about it (see the Cold War).

Third, since he actually knew contemporary British Trotskyists I think it's fair to assume he had a far better idea of what he's talking about than you.

Fourth, Orwell himself had a very low opinion of the Soviets, so I doubt he's criticizing others who share that opinion just to make small talk.
 

HueyLong

Banned
First of all, opposing a foreign government is not political dissent, and it's pretty obvious that most of the world's Trotskyists lived outside the Soviet Union.

Second of all, irrational feelings can mix with even the most justified opinions and there's no rule that someone who opposes a totalitarian state must be completely reasonable about it (see the Cold War).

Third, since he actually knew contemporary British Trotskyists I think it's fair to assume he had a far better idea of what he's talking about than you.

Fourth, Orwell himself had a very low opinion of the Soviets, so I doubt he's criticizing others who share that opinion just to make small talk.

The Soviet Union was the only supporter of communist movements abroad. Thus, anyone opposing a pro-Soviet movement got tied into the matter of the Soviets. The Soviet Union was not in isolation. Secondly, you're ignoring the emigres who were forced to leave or well, die.

Fair enough that he may know better, but I can still find his conclusions flawed. I don't think that Trotskyists were truly "negative nationalists" as their dislike was purely political.

And as for your fourth point, while Orwell did in fact dislike the Soviets, he had grown to dislike the Trotskyists just as much because of his experiences in the Spanish Civil War.
 
The Soviet Union was the only supporter of communist movements abroad. Thus, anyone opposing a pro-Soviet movement got tied into the matter of the Soviets. The Soviet Union was not in isolation.

It's not dissent and calling it that way means letting the Soviets define the terms. You might as well call social democracy dissent.

Secondly, you're ignoring the emigres who were forced to leave or well, die.


But how much did they represent the Trotskyist movement at that time?
 
Top