Get PDF Americanism versus Imperialism

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Americanism versus Imperialism file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Americanism versus Imperialism book. Happy reading Americanism versus Imperialism Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Americanism versus Imperialism at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Americanism versus Imperialism Pocket Guide.
AMERICANISM versus IMPERIALISM. BY ANDREW CARNEGIE,. For several grave reasons I regard possessions in the Far East as fraught with nothing but.
Table of contents

• Shelley Polanco, Adia Clarke and Kuangye Wang
• WikiZero - Anti-Americanism
• Americanism vs. Imperialism, Andrew Carnegie

So my question to you, then, is what do you do about it? What are the steps? What concrete, tangible, specific things should I do? What we can do in the short term, adhere to policies which really correspond with our values. So the charge of hypocrisy, I think, you know, seems pretty deep these days. So in the short term I would say live by the values which you uphold.

And that would be the first one. The second one, I think, is apologize. Clinton did go to Africa and apologize. This was one of very rare events when an American president apologized.

Shelley Polanco, Adia Clarke and Kuangye Wang

So there are things we can do. Take Guantanamo.

So there will be some costs there, but the benefits would be enormous for the U. But we ought to close Guantanamo as fast as possible, and there may be some costs of that. Laughter, laughs. I know a government that would be happy to have it back. The symbolism would be profound, and I agree with that. There are other symbolic gestures, such as those that Peter raised. The problem there was that we let it go a little bit too long before realizing that our friends might be actually able to pitch in. Their success was unclear, as it were. But I think that—you know, I mentioned this expectation in the global body politic that the United States is the provider of global public good.

And on the stylistic front, which I think matters incredibly—I take a big hit at public diplomacy in this book and when I talk, but I do think public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy are both incredibly important, but they can only be as effective as the substantive policies that undergird them. I want to bring the rest of the room into the conversation now, and let me do just a short housekeeping duty here; that is, please wait for the microphone and speak directly into it.

If you could, please stand and say your name and your affiliation, and as always, please limit yourself to one question. I would like to ask the panel, what do you think of the democracy promotion exercise? Do you think this has fed the charges of hypocrisy in the sense that we are seeing as—while promoting free votes and—well, freedom in certain societies, yet protecting, shoring up dictatorships, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. So my personal view is democracy promotion is the way to go because it actually corresponds to our values. You know, yes, when we do it in a hypocritical way, it hurts us.

Very effective. And it has several features. So nobody is forced to, but they have positive incentives to. So usually the countries that are on the cusp are countries that have some prospect of becoming democratic. Is it transient? Is it addressed by some of the measures you suggest in how we should reverse the anti- American tide? Or is it another genuine cause for long-term concern?

I think—well, we talk in the book—or our authors do—about a number of situations where anti-Americanism is indeed manipulated. So, for example, in Turkey and Germany—both in the year before the war occurred—politicians found it convenient to become anti- American, so to speak, in their pronouncements, but the leverage was U. But it is—anti-Americanism has always filtered through the political incentives of politicians. And as Peter said a minute ago, you know, authoritarian politicians often—often the Egyptians, for example, allow and even encourage anti-American propaganda as a way of diverting attention away from their own evils to their states.

And democratic politicians, of course, find the same incentive. This question has to do with functionally the rise in the long view of anti-Americanism. I have two specific events. Which do you think was more powerful from a hardening of distrust and to bias—was the actual war, the start of the Iraq war in or the result of the election, the reaffirmation by our public in ?

In the long view, which, do you think, will have the more damaging effect? But I do really think, all things being equal, that it was the diplomacy around the Iraq war and the consequences of it that have been far more polarizing, including the symbolic pieces of the war on terror in Iraq, such as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

• American imperialism?
• MODERN U.S. HISTORY discussion-.
• Shop with confidence.
• The Factor of Eighteen.
• The Discursive Origins of Anti-Americanism in the Two Koreas?

So I wonder if we could explore Americanism as an ideology for a moment. Was it, for instance, an American ideology of inclusiveness, kind of pseudo- or genuine democratic values, that created the U. Is an ideological dimension central to this whole discussion, rather than simply one powerful country as opposed to another?

But the ideology itself, of course, is domestically contested. The other observation which you made is also very interesting. This is true in Europe. If you ask the Dutch, are you anti-German or anti-American, they say anti-German. So the relevance—the devil across the water is always the better devil.

And so how the question is framed, which is why public opinion polls are extremely difficult to interpret, is enormously important. America has been viewed since in dichotomous ways by Europeans and the world.

One way to view it was as the barbaric age, pre-Christian age, people had to be converted, and negative stereotypes about America which have run through the French thinking, for example, for centuries. The other way is, this is the new promising—this is the new world, the promising new world, which has all the possibilities for getting away from the hatreds and the anachronisms of the old world.

Of course, Americans have taken the latter more, but Europeans have had this back and forth—this dualistic image. And so part of that is this resonance with this protean notion of America, which can be anything that you think. And we talk about America in our book, at the end, as being polyvalent. America has so many different aspects. You can take anything you want. And that makes it a rich source of tropes.

For anyone who is upset about our policy, you can always find terrible things about America to go along with that; or vice versa, if you like what America is doing, you can find lots of things to admire. There was a recent article in the New York Review of Books by William Pfaff talking about the recent events in France, and I bring it up for a specific reason; where basically, of course, he talked about the common view that this was sclerosis in the system.

But he said France is the precursor of many new ideas, and this is really the beginning, not the end, of the movement against both globalization and the American economic model. Do you feel that that has some validity? So this is always good to remember about the French. A former student of mine, Ravi Attola ph , who is a professor at the Harvard Business School, has just finished a book which looks at this question.

And his argument is that globalization, rule-bound globalization, is a French product.

1. Wart Removal: The Most Well Guarded Secrets Exposed.
2. The Merger: The Synergy of the Blood and The Cross.
3. Tor;
4. The gospel of wealth, and other timely essays,?
5. Lily Makes Friends: a social skills story!

Carnegie asserts that America can do nothing but harm to the Philippines. Cuba had already been granted independence at the time Carnegie wrote. Imperialism can become a "holy duty" only if we can by forcible interference confer blessings upon the subject races; otherwise it remains what the President once said it was, "criminal aggression.

Has the influence of the superior race upon the inferior ever proved beneficial to either? I know of no case in which it has been or is We can only retard, not hasten, their [the Philippines] development. They have just the same feelings as we have, not excluding love of country, for which, like ourselves, as we see, they are willing to die. Oh, the pity of it! Yet the invader was ordered by those who see it their "duty" to invade the land of the Filipinos for their civilization.

Duty, stern goddess, what strange things men sometimes do in thy name! Historical note: the United States did not leave the Philippines until Posted by Reader of Books at AM. In all these cases the U.