It Just Occurred to Me

[Balthazzar]

That preventing freedom of speech and assembly and lack of opportunity to educate ourselves, how terribly misguided we would become. I wonder if this is part of the reason for the middle eastern hostilities against us. The elite in those areas have a strong arm in place for the purpose of retaining power and control over the people. What the elites know and the common don't help ensure less cause for uprising, which is typically shifted towards other people and nations. What a mess and wake up for anyone lacking empathy for the confusion present in those regions.

Is this possibly the reason for the hatred against us?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Is this possibly the reason for the hatred against us?

It seems to me that a more realistic reason behind hatred toward the US is its decades of military aggression, hostile interventionism, exploitation, self-righteous propaganda about "democracy" and "freedom" that is conspicuously belied by many of its policies, and its alliances with bellicose countries like the UK and Saudi Arabia in its political and military misadventures.

The ire that is wrapped in religious radicalism and aimed at the US more than other countries is often (but certainly not always) a symptom of the above, not the origin of it. There's a reason religious fundamentalists outside the West rarely publicly condemn or focus their criticism on countries like Iceland, New Zealand, Finland, Norway, etc., compared to the US, the UK, France, and other countries with an imperialist history and abusive recent or current foreign policies.

Edit: I based my reply on the assumption that you're from the US, which I recall is the case, but I'm not sure if my memory is correct on that one. (I might have gotten your username mixed up with another person's.) If you were talking about another country when you said "us," my above answer doesn't apply.

 

[Balthazzar]

It seems to me that a more realistic reason behind hatred toward the US is its decades of military aggression, hostile interventionism, exploitation, self-righteous propaganda about "democracy" and "freedom" that is conspicuously belied by many of its policies, and its alliances with bellicose countries like the UK and Saudi Arabia in its political and military misadventures.

The ire that is wrapped in religious radicalism and aimed at the US more than other countries is often (but certainly not always) a symptom of the above, not the origin of it. There's a reason religious fundamentalists outside the West rarely publicly condemn or focus their criticism on countries like Iceland, New Zealand, Finland, Norway, etc., compared to the US, the UK, France, and other countries with an imperialist history and abusive recent or current foreign policies.

Edit: I based my reply on your being from the US, but I don't recall for certain whether you were. If you were talking about another country when you said "us," my above answer doesn't apply.

So, you're suggesting lack of freedom of speech, assembly, and access and availability to higher learning isn't part of the issue? It's just the last few decades of intervention that makes them hate us. Is that what you're suggesting? Nearly 5 decades ago, I watched Iranians burn American flags as they chanted death to America. I'm not bitter about it. It's just that I'm trying to understand the cause and reason for the hatred. You suggest the last few decades of military intervention. I suggest the lack of education, inability to assemble, and the prevention of free speech as being the culprit behind the powers in play who control the region. It would seem easy enough to control a population via ignorance. It has been a long-standing tactic for a few millennia now. Otherwise, they may be required to deal with rebel uprisings ... Wait! That's exactly what has happened in years past to which other nations have answered the call for the liberation of those held captive.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So, you're suggesting lack of freedom of speech, assembly, and access and availability to higher learning isn't part of the issue? It's just the last few decades of intervention that makes them hate us. Is that what you're suggesting?

No, I'm saying that the US' foreign policy is a significant factor in the negative perceptions of it in many other countries. I believe the other issues you mentioned are factors for some people, but by themselves, I don't see solid evidence that they would lead to hostilities from individuals against other countries purely out of hatred. China, Vietnam, and Cuba, for example, all have highly repressive governments that highly restrict freedom of speech, but individuals in those countries (as opposed to governments) haven't engaged in hostilities against other countries to any significant extent in decades.

I don't doubt that education, freedom of speech, public discourse, etc., help against hatred of other countries when said hatred is rooted in ignorance and misconceptions. However, I believe that much of the negative sentiment toward the US in many countries is more complicated and has more reasons than these issues alone.

Nearly 5 decades ago, I watched Iranians burn American flags as they chanted death to America. I'm not bitter about it. It's just that I'm trying to understand the cause and reason for the hatred. You suggest the last few decades of military intervention. I suggest the lack of education, inability to assemble, and the prevention of free speech as being the culprit behind the powers in play who control the region. It would seem easy enough to control a population via ignorance. It has been a long-standing tactic for a few millennia now. Otherwise, they may be required to deal with rebel uprisings ... Wait! That's exactly what has happened in years past to which other nations have answered the call for the liberation of those held captive.

Five decades ago was in 1974, which was more than two decades after the US supported a coup in Iran. The US has since continued to unnecessarily antagonize Iran and make an even bigger enemy out of it.

I'm not suggesting that all of the anti-US hatred can be traced back to its foreign policy; I have personally seen my fair share of people who cite religious reasons, rather than political or historical ones, for their hatred of other countries, both the US and many others. I think the reasons may vary on an individual basis, but overall, it seems to me that in the specific case of the US, its hostile approach toward many countries is almost surely the most influential factor in the widespread negative sentiments toward it in said countries.

 

[Balthazzar]

No, I'm saying that the US' foreign policy is a significant factor in the negative perceptions of it in many other countries. I believe the other issues you mentioned are factors for some people, but by themselves, I don't see solid evidence that they would lead to hostilities against other countries purely out of hatred. China, Vietnam, and Cuba, for example, all have highly repressive governments that highly restrict freedom of speech, but individuals in those countries (as opposed to governments) haven't engaged in hostilities against other countries to any significant extent in decades.

I don't doubt that education, freedom of speech, public discourse, etc., help against hatred of other countries when said hatred is rooted in ignorance and misconceptions. However, I believe that much of the negative sentiment toward the US in many countries is more complicated and has more reasons than these issues alone.



Five decades ago was in 1974, which was more than two decades after the US supported a coup in Iran. The US has since continued to unnecessarily antagonize Iran and make an even bigger enemy out of it.

I'm not suggesting that all of the anti-US hatred can be traced back to its foreign policy; I have personally seen my fair share of people who cite religious reasons, rather than political or historical ones, for their hatred of other countries, both the US and many others. I think the reasons may vary on an individual basis, but overall, it seems to me that in the specific case of the US, its hostile approach toward many countries is almost surely the most influential factor in the widespread negative sentiments toward it in said countries.

Typically speaking, a citizen base becomes militant against unjust treatment being perpetrated by the leadership in power. Rebel forces band together in defense and often enough attempt to overthrow the unjust leadership. We've witnessed this time and again in human history. Sometimes other nations answer the call for help of rebel factions who stood up against leaders they deemed unfit to lead. This is when things get beyond our ability to stay out of the conflicts. In the 70's it was rebel factions who persuaded help from other nations. This has been on-going for a very long time and across the globe. At this point, we have multi-generational hatred in play and missing history fueling the angst against the U.S, and other nations. This is why I suggested the culprit is a lack of freedom to speak freely, inability to assemble peaceably, and an inability to become better educated. These freedoms are typically granted elsewhere. The rebel faction's leadership are often very well educated, which is very likely why there's so much conflict in those regions. The rebel leadership becomes aware of and acknowledges injustices. Education helps enable them to free themselves from the unjust leadership. It all gets skewed over time and conflict. The lines get crossed, confused, and with the additions of outside forces coming to the aid of both sides. It has become a very complicated political drama present day and It's being played out across the globe.

Some leaders fear an educated population - for obvious reasons. Which is more valuable? Liberty and justice which often comes by way of conflict or injustice and conflict?

Truth be told, it has become so complicated that we often enough find ourselves second guessing our involvement.

 

[anna.]

So, you're suggesting lack of freedom of speech, assembly, and access and availability to higher learning isn't part of the issue? It's just the last few decades of intervention that makes them hate us. Is that what you're suggesting? Nearly 5 decades ago, I watched Iranians burn American flags as they chanted death to America. I'm not bitter about it. It's just that I'm trying to understand the cause and reason for the hatred. You suggest the last few decades of military intervention. I suggest the lack of education, inability to assemble, and the prevention of free speech as being the culprit behind the powers in play who control the region. It would seem easy enough to control a population via ignorance. It has been a long-standing tactic for a few millennia now. Otherwise, they may be required to deal with rebel uprisings ... Wait! That's exactly what has happened in years past to which other nations have answered the call for the liberation of those held captive.

American interventionism goes back to the late 1800s, in Hawaii, with our involvement in the insurrection which overthrew the monarchy. No surprise that one of the driving reasons was to protect American business interests...

 

[Balthazzar]

American interventionism goes back to the late 1800s, in Hawaii, with our involvement in the insurrection which overthrew the monarchy. No surprise that one of the driving reasons was to protect American business interests...

Not surprising, you're correct. Business and political interests are the reasons in many cases. Would you prefer that our involvements be humanitarian only? This may have saved us from getting too involved in times past. I feel for those in the Ukraine and also for those who live on the strip. Thus far, humanitarian aid is as far as we've gone in terms of involvement without a direct attack against Americans. I'm seeing a defense only mentality in play due to the confusion caused by our conflicts over the last several decades, not to mention what greater military involvement might equate to. Then again, without our allies where would we be?

 

[anna.]

Not surprising, you're correct. Business and political interests are the reasons in many cases. Would you prefer that our involvements be humanitarian only? This may have saved us from getting too involved in times past. I feel for those in the Ukraine and also for those who live on the strip. Thus far, humanitarian aid is as far as we've gone in terms of involvement without a direct attack against Americans. I'm seeing a defense only mentality in play due to the confusion caused by our conflicts over the last several decades, not to mention what greater military involvement might equate to. Then again, without our allies where would we be?

In Ukraine, we've provided many more billions in arms than we've provided in humanitarian relief. I'm not an isolationist, but I'm not a flag-planter either. Our past history of intervening in other countries at the expense of their citizens isn't pretty, and there are many good reasons for citizens of other countries to resent or hate us.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interesting thread, and I agree with the general mix of points being raised. One thing that is worth considering is that a useful way to unite people is to have a rallying cry and a common enemy. America, through her foreign policy, military strength, and general political influence is an obvious target for this. Is it deserved? Well...sometimes yes, to be honest. But it does mean what some people and some nations are targeting is almost a parody of the United States.

If you take a nation where there is a strong monarch, or an otherwise powerful state that can make decisions without referring to the populace, it can become more likely to see other nations in the same, coherent manner. Rather than as messy and less consistent. That cuts both ways, I would say.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that a more realistic reason behind hatred toward the US is its decades of military aggression, hostile interventionism, exploitation, self-righteous propaganda about "democracy" and "freedom" that is conspicuously belied by many of its policies, and its alliances with bellicose countries like the UK and Saudi Arabia in its political and military misadventures.

The ire that is wrapped in religious radicalism and aimed at the US more than other countries is often (but certainly not always) a symptom of the above, not the origin of it. There's a reason religious fundamentalists outside the West rarely publicly condemn or focus their criticism on countries like Iceland, New Zealand, Finland, Norway, etc., compared to the US, the UK, France, and other countries with an imperialist history and abusive recent or current foreign policies.

Edit: I based my reply on the assumption that you're from the US, which I recall is the case, but I'm not sure if my memory is correct on that one. (I might have gotten your username mixed up with another person's.) If you were talking about another country when you said "us," my above answer doesn't apply.

The UK is a bellicose country?
England has its problems but I don't think those last 2 words apply.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The UK is a bellicose country?
England has its problems but I don't think those last 2 words apply.

I would say it (the UK) is, yes. It has followed American military aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen (both of them have supported the Saudi-led coalition that has killed thousands, or hundreds of thousands if we include the effects of the famine, of civilians and precipitated a famine in Yemen). It is also now supporting Israel's onslaught on Gaza.

In many situations where the US has started or tried to start major military action overseas in the last 30 years, the UK has followed in those footsteps, tried to, or offered support.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would say it (the UK) is, yes. It has followed American military aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen (both of them have supported the Saudi-led coalition that has killed thousands, or hundreds of thousands if we include the effects of the famine, of civilians and precipitated a famine in Yemen). It is also now supporting Israel's onslaught on Gaza.

In many situations where the US has started or tried to start major military action overseas in the last 30 years, the UK has followed in those footsteps, tried to, or offered support.

I see the UK as a group of countries,
not all as wicked as England.

Countries of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Debater Slayer]

I see the UK as a group of countries,
not all as wicked as England.

Countries of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fair enough. The policies I mentioned are typically enacted under the banner of the entire state (the UK), but I can see where you're coming from.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough. The policies I mentioned are typically enacted under the banner of the entire state (the UK), but I can see where you're coming from.

Defending Scotland, of course!

 

[Valjean]

Typically speaking, a citizen base becomes militant against unjust treatment being perpetrated by the leadership in power. Rebel forces band together in defense and often enough attempt to overthrow the unjust leadership. We've witnessed this time and again in human history. Sometimes other nations answer the call for help of rebel factions who stood up against leaders they deemed unfit to lead. This is when things get beyond our ability to stay out of the conflicts. In the 70's it was rebel factions who persuaded help from other nations. This has been on-going for a very long time and across the globe. At this point, we have multi-generational hatred in play and missing history fueling the angst against the U.S, and other nations. This is why I suggested the culprit is a lack of freedom to speak freely, inability to assemble peaceably, and an inability to become better educated. These freedoms are typically granted elsewhere. The rebel faction's leadership are often very well educated, which is very likely why there's so much conflict in those regions. The rebel leadership becomes aware of and acknowledges injustices. Education helps enable them to free themselves from the unjust leadership. It all gets skewed over time and conflict. The lines get crossed, confused, and with the additions of outside forces coming to the aid of both sides. It has become a very complicated political drama present day and It's being played out across the globe.

Some leaders fear an educated population - for obvious reasons. Which is more valuable? Liberty and justice which often comes by way of conflict or injustice and conflict?

Truth be told, it has become so complicated that we often enough find ourselves second guessing our involvement.

The repressive leaders hated by populations are frequently installed and supported by US foreign policy.
US business interests aren't supported by democratic regimes that tend to spend their country's treasure on public services. Installing and supporting a coöperative autocrat who will keep the people in line and play ball with US corporate interests is good business.

Hostility to the US is largely generated by the very military adventurism that claims to protect us from it.