Dear Rebecca,
I think it is precisely in the context of neocon cultural wars that
alliances need to be strengthened between American resistance to this and
the European opposition to 'Bush n Blair'. Anti-american is obviously not a
helpful term here, but there would also be a need to negotiate an analysis
of American culture, national identity, and foreign policy. One of the
neocon (?) myths being promulgated (and evident in the response to 9/11) is
the innocence of America - which denies at least 50 years of foreign policy
(if not policy since the US/Spanish war of the 1890s), not to mention the
genocide and expropriation on which the US is based.
Best
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: REBECCA SEIFERLE [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday 18 November 2004 16:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: anti-american,
Well, I don't know, I think Geraldine's right that it's a kick in the teeth
to many of
us, many are terrifically depressed, though the younger voters I know are
sort of
incandescent with anger which is, I think, a good thing. I wasn't very
enthusiastic about Kerry, from the beginning it seemed to me that he
accepted
too many basic assumptions of the Bush administration and so adopted a
'fix-it'
role, an "I wouldn't make such mistakes" claim rather than a fundamental
challenge and I'd guess many were voting as they did more as a profound no
to
Bush and his policies than out of enthusiasm for Kerry. As for being
defensive
about America or being American, I find it problematic being treated as
representative of a country whose actions have never represented me (I've
been
voting for losers for a long time!) but whose actions so disturb me. I think
Susan's right about a "cold civil war," though perhaps the awareness of this
may
be sharper now among the left. I think the neocons have been deadly serious
about the cultural wars from the beginning; it's a profoundly different
America
they imagine than I would wish to live in and yet their rise is, as Tim
suggests,
symptomatic, and as they themselves say reflective of their 'values' which
are
evidently held by many. As for those who don't vote, I don't think they are
more
interesting in that I'd guess if they had voted, the result would have been
the
same. I don't think there's some large group of silent people out there who
are
imagining some whole other thing, I'd like to think so, but innumerable
conversations through the years with the non-voting have not led me to feel
they have some other 'values' than those that drove this election. Well and
thanks to all for your thoughts on this which have been interesting,
Best,
Rebecca
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:35:29 -0000
>From: Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: anti-american,
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>I take it you mean the Democratic voters
>
>I don't think it's anything like that
>
>If they were all voting against Bush only, that would be something; but
>Kerry isn't that far from Bush; and I assume many who voted for him wanted
>him
>
>It may well be a kick in the teeth for all those who didn't vote at all.
>They're the really interesting ones.
>
>L
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Geraldine Monk <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 18 November 2004 13:16
>Subject: Re: anti-american,
>
>
>
>>it's
>>a bit like kicking 51 million American's in the teeth
|