Salman Rushdie on anti-Americanism

Biffa Bacon

Salman Rushdie wrote an interesting piece on anti-Americanism yesterday in the Guardian of all places:

Anti-Americanism has taken the world by storm

My favourite parts were:

Western critics of America's Afghan campaign are enraged because they have been shown to be wrong at every step: no, US forces weren't humiliated the way the Russians had been; and yes, the air strikes did work; and no, the Northern Alliance didn't massacre people in Kabul; and yes, the Taliban did crumble away like the hated tyrants they were, even in their southern strongholds; and no, it wasn't that difficult to get the militants out of their cave fortresses; and yes, the various factions succeeded in putting together a new government that is surprising people by functioning pretty well.

and

What America is accused of - closed-mindedness, stereotyping, ignorance - is also what its accusers would see if they looked into a mirror.

and

Western anti-Americanism is an altogether more petulant phenomenon than its Islamic counterpart, and, oddly, far more personalised. Muslim countries don't like America's power, its "arrogance", its success; in the non-American west, the main objection seems to be to American people. Night after night, I have found myself listening to Londoners' diatribes against the sheer weirdness of the American citizenry. The attacks on America are routinely discounted ("Americans only care about their own dead"). American patriotism, obesity, emotionality, self-centredness: these are the crucial issues.

Right on Salman!

bonkey

Interesting article.

I am a bit curious though as to how Rushdie can apparently support the US so fully, level monikers of "anti-Americanism" at anyone daring to question the US chosen course of action, and then come up with :

It would be easy for America, in the present climate of hostility, to fail to respond to constructive criticism, or worse: to start acting like the overwhelming superpower it is, making decisions and throwing its weight around without regard for the concerns of what it perceives as an already hostile world. The treatment of the Camp X-Ray detainees is a case in point.

Colin Powell's reported desire to grant these persons PoW status and Geneva Convention rights was a statesmanlike response to global pressure; his apparent failure to persuade President Bush and Mr Rumsfeld to accept his recommendations is a worrying sign.

This is exactly the type of criticism which he has just spent an entire article complaining about, and yet here he is, voicing the same concerns. Can we not therefore assume that this man, writing an article decrying anti-American is himself anti-American. If not, then why are his critiques permissable, while the rest of those who criticise get branded?

Mr. Rushdie would do well to get off his high moral preaching ground, and look to himself before pointing fingers at others.

Furthermore, the "Western anti-Americanism" he talks about has come from many Americans as well - something which Mr. Rushdie completely fails to mention. Are these US citizens unpatriotic for daring to criticise their own nation? Are they anti-American Americans? Or, by virtue of their nationality, are they the only people who have the right to criticise?

At the end of the day, the American govt is doing what they feel is right. They are doing what they feel is justified. Apparently anyone who disagrees with this is "anti-American". Rushdie blames Europeans of making generalisations, and then himself fails to see a distinction between criticising specific actions of a nation and actually being "anti" that nation.

By his logic, I am anti-Irish for I have many criticism about the Irish government. I am anti-American, anti-European, and pretty much anti-Everything, because there are few (if any) entities, groups or nations in this world who's entire set of actions are beyond reproach.

jc

Biffa Bacon

No one says that to criticise America is in itself anti-American. What is meant by anti-American criticisms is that those criticisms are not founded on any reasonable notions of what is fair or right or true, but rather criticisms that are solely prompted by a dislike of America. You only have to read any of the topics on the Afghan War on this board to find ridiculous criticisms of America and gross generalisations on Americans. Claims that the war is all about oil for example. Calling the US the world's biggest terrorist. Or complaining that the prisoners being taken to Camp X-Ray weren't given window seats. Or that America is bombing Afghanistan into the Stone Age. It is correct to call such criticisms anti-American because it is anti-Americanism that informs them.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No one says that to criticise America is in itself anti-American.

Thats pretty much the tone of Rushdie's article.

Look at the topics he picked. Taje the very first issue raised, which you quoted - he claims that people are enraged the Americans didnt get their asses kicked like the Russians did. I dont believe *anyone* in the western world is enraged. People looked at the situation, made an evaluation (educated or otherwise) and offered that opinion.

I, for example, seriously doubted that the US could manage to rout the Taliban before the snow set in, at which point they were fighting a losing battle. I fall squarely into the category of people who criticised that action. Rushdie implies that people like me, because we offer further criticism are simply trying to get over our having been proven wrong by the Americans whom we somehow wanted to see get beaten.

I am not enraged that I have been shown wrong. I am not proud when I am shown to be right. I simply offer my perspective on events (past or forthcoming) based on my opinions and beliefs. I have done this consistently.

I have been called anti-American in these discussions more times than I can count.

Now, reading through the rest of your post, which I'm not going to bother quoting here, I see that you believe that the anti-American sentiment has been coming from people issuing ridiculous criticisms of the US.

Here are the main "ridiculous" criticisms which have resulted in me being branded anti-American :

1) The US incursion into Afghanistan was carried out without proof being offered to the Taliban as a reason for the extradition of bin Laden. Given that the US have since encouraged India to supply Pakistan with evidence to back up their extradition requests, I feel justified that my charges were (and are) reasonable.

2) The US attacks were clearly suffering from either poor intelligence or poor ability, as evidenced by the repeated targetting of UN buildings and of completely innocent Afghanis. The US on the other hand, played down any innocent casualties, except when they happened to be American in nature. Here, the American government, through its media, have told the world how successful its mission has been. On the other hand, all I say is that the US base far too much weight on unconfirmed intelligence. This is evidenced by the recent (Jan 24) attack on anti-Taliban leaders, followed by their subsequent capture. They were released today after the US was satisfied they were innocent, with the excuse being offered simply as "we were told by our sources that they were Taliban". Time and time again throughout this conflict, the US have hit targets which were invalid, and swept it under the carpet with "it was bad intel", and yet never seem to question the need to have beter intel before acting.

3) I questioned the blind condemnation of the M-i-S events without full facts being known, and the refusal of the allied forces to allow a timely investigation. Obviously, my wish that people actually found out what happened, rather than just believing the official story is anti-American.

4) The US does not have the right as a signatory of the Geneva Convention to decide when it does and does not apply to their own prisoners. Furthermore, I would maintain that the conditions in Camo X-Ray do not meet with Geneva Convention or even American Constitutional requirements. Given that an ex-senator in the US was threatening legal action over the same claims, I again feel somewhat justified in offering this criticism.

I have probably been called anti-American more often than any other poster during the discussions of the aftermath of 9.11.

Now, by your logic, I am called anti-American because these criticisms are "solely prompted by a dislike of America". I would like you to justify that statement. Please show how and where I have a dislike of America, and why the claims I have outlined above are ridiculous and unfounded.

Otherwise, I would suggest that the anti-American claims are, in fact, a simple attempt to distract from real criticism, by simply throwing it into the same category as the fanatics and cranks.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Whoah there. I wasn't targeting anything at you or accusing you of being anti-American. But it is quite clear to me that the criticisms of very many people (although not all) are informed by anti-Americanism, and not on a fair and reasonable appraisal of the facts.

Jaden

It would be interesting for you to dig up a few sample posts to show this unbased anti-american attitude that you can so painly see. Just to see if we're talking the same langauge here.

ReefBreak

An excellent and timely article by Salman Rushdie. Actually, if you're searching for Anti-Americanism in Ireland, look no further than the daily barrage on the Irish Times letters page. Today is a good example.

Sir, - I wish to express my utter dismay at U2's decision to perform at Sunday's Superbowl in New Orleans. The Superbowl is the ultimate display of Americana and this year's event was the most ferverently patriotic yet. Given the current political climate, with Bush as self-appointed moral dictator of the world, just stopping short of declaring war on Iran, Iraq, North Korea and any other country that refuses to fall into step with American foreign policy, it amounts to blatant populism on the part of U2. It's not as if they need either the money or the publicity, so why did they do it?

Further, the refusal of the Bush administration to grant POW status to prisoners seized in Afghanistan and the fact that it is now promising the biggest defence budget since the Cold War era shows that the US "war on terrorism" is not just about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, but is part of an overall plan to maintain American global economic and political hegemony at all costs.

U2's performance at the Superbowl is an endorsement of current US policies. I would have expected better. - Yours, etc.,

DEARBHLA KELLY, Lakeshore Drive, Chicago, USA.

But I've just got to say this... Dearbhla (yes, I know she's not reading this): if refusing "to fall into step with American foreign policy" involves the build-up of weapons of mass destruction that could be used as weapons of terrorism against innocent civilians throughout the world, then I've no problems with George Bush's policy. I've no doubt U2 played the concert for publicity but I've also no doubt they also had a desire to remember the victims of September 11. Some of the groups referred to in Rushdie's article could do with remembering those victims from time to time also.

Actually, the anti-americanism seems to have quietened down recently on this board - something to do the speed and effectiveness of the war in Afghanistan perhaps?

bonkey

Biffa - no offense taken. Its just that like I said at the end of the last post....a lot of honest criticism is getting branded as anti-Americanism. If you read Rushdie's post, he has a healthy mix of the two - the valid and the stupd criticisms, but he lumps them all together.

He has a point, but its badly made. Either that, or he is actually lumping honest criticism in with stupid sniping. At least, thats how I read it.

You clearly agreed with his article (with the Right On comment). I didnt. I felt it necessary to offer the other side - my perception of merited criticism being thrown away because its easy to label it inaccurately.

jc

mike65

Sometimes the US is right, and sometimes the US is wrong, but it does'nt matter either way because everyone has a view on the last remaining superpower, and everyone will interpret its actions to suit their own politics.

Mike.

As for U2 at the superbowl, that sucked. If I'd been in that band I'd have taken a sickie.

Shinji

Heh.

I see Salman Rushdie's point; it's astonishing the number of utterly uninformed anti-American viewpoints you hear. London taxi driver syndrome


However, there are many others who take extreme anti-Americanism as an excuse to ignore any criticism of the USA, and that's a big problem in itself.

I'm quite anti-American. I don't dislike most of the American people, I'm not anti-capitalist or anti-consumer culture, but I an genuinely concerned as a citizen of Europe and of the World about the stranglehold held on the planet by a single culture and a single nation. I dislike a great many things about American culture (or lack of same; America is not so much a culture as an economy) and foreign policy; I particularly loathe their trumpeting of their nation as the land of the free while simultaneously exercising some of the most censorious and repressive laws and practices of any first world nation.

But ultimately if anyone asks me to justify my views, I can. I don't dislike America because it's "trendy" or because "I just do"; I've thought it out and I'd like to think that I'm quite balanced about it, because I can certainly see good aspects of the nation as well. And I'm with Salman Rushdie on this one; the London taxi driver syndrome of whinging about America without knowing the first thing about it is really starting to grate, and more worryingly, it's starting to drown out the voices who are talking about the real issues.

DadaKopf

I don't particularly share Rushdie's view but it's easy to know where he's coming from. For someone who was sentenced to death by the entire Islamic nation for blasphemy, his views are entirely understandable. He's clearly informed by experience and he's never made apologies for the Middle Eastern regimes which he sees as despotic.

It's we, in Ireland, who can discuss this as detached observers. In a time of irrationality on both sides of the 'war', a view like his is invaluable.