Are we watching the same news ?

Brit

Interesting, but it goes well beyond "the news media". I think it's a big mistake to say, "You believe what you believe because the media tells you what's true and not true". People seized on this erroneous idea and setup their own alternative news. The problem is that they think the news media is some strange independent force that moves societies. But, the media is influenced by the society in which they exist. There is an inter-relationship between society and its news. This is evidenced by the number of small socialist papers in the US created to "reveal the truth", but people aren't buying their ideas and the papers are relegated to remain small and totally inconsequential. Are we supposed to believe that the eastern Europeans are backing the American view on Iraq "because their news media tells them to"? Not likely. The fact of the matter is that eastern Europe is still grateful to the US for the American role in the world. For example: I was born 89 years ago on the eve of World War I in Warsaw, when Poles were forced to live under the despotic rule of the Russian czars. The United States did not have any strategic or economic interests in Eastern Europe, but in 1917 President Woodrow Wilson made the restoration of Polish independence one of his 14 conditions for peace. If it had not been for Wilson, Poland might have disappeared forever from the map of Europe....Poland's economy remained a disaster area [in 1989]. Again the United States came to the rescue. Poland's first democratic government was saved by U.S. leadership in aggressively promoting an emergency international financial assistance package. Thank you, America: A Pole remembers[^]) The fact of the matter is that the media affects society and society affects the media. The eastern Europeans also back the US view in part because they have more TRUST in the US. This is due to the historical role the US has played in their countries. Everytime you see a someone who claims "the US is attacking Iraq for Oil" - you have to realize that the view is predicated on a mistrust of the US. If you trust the US, you are not going to take that view. So why is the media painting different pictures in the US than it is in France and Germany? Because people in the US trust the US more than people in France and Germany trust US intention

KaRl

Interesting analysis :) About the backing of the Eastern countries to the US policy, we should perhaps separate the governments from the populations. I'm not sure the polls show they mostly follow GWB, as in Spain, Italy or UK. That's the main mistake of Chirac, he should have disassociate the countries and the governments. About the trust however,you're probably right, US haven't disappointed them as other european countries did. The example is also significative. At 89, this man has probably some problems with his memory: * Poland was shared before WW1 between Russia, but also Germany and Austria-Hungria, not Russia alone. * Wilson was not the only one to push to create Poland. For example, since 1914, Clémenceau declared; "Poland will live again. One of the biggest crimes of the History will end". * Wilson had to manage a polish vote in the US, it's IMO the main reason of his political stance. * The re-birth of Poland was declared in the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty was not ratified by the US Senate, invalidating the US guarantee on it. * What unthankfulness in a way, France is the one with UK who declared war to Germany when Poland was invaded in 1939, not the US. They didn't even declared war to Germany during WWII! I've read the whole article, this "testimony" is full of historical imprecisions or mistakes. Does nobody verify these details before publishing? How to build a solid opinion when the bases are unstable? Brit wrote: you have to realize that the view is predicated on a mistrust of the US It's exactly the core of the subject. We have to believe, when we are waiting for a mathematical demonstration. It's a war, thousands of people will die. It's something extremely serious, wich will have unpredictable consequences, so the background has to be solid. All the reasons given by the current US admistration are for the moment neither verificated nor justifying a war yet. So, because of a lack of logical reasons, people are searching for others. It's also difficult to trust GWB when his main message to the Rest of the World since he's elected is "Screw you, guys".

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Brit

I think you're right about a majority of eastern europeans not supporting US intervention. But, even the US population is only marginally in support of US action (and the number shrinks dramatically without UN backing). I think the eastern european population is closer to the US stance than, say, the French or German stance - even if a majority of them aren't in favor. Links: 35 per cent of Poles spoke in favour of Poland's support for a possible U.S. intervention in Iraq. 46 per cent of Poles are against such action http://www.masterpage.com.pl/news/news/934.htm[^] Some mixed statistics http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30567527[^] Brit wrote: you have to realize that the view is predicated on a mistrust of the US KaЯl wrote: It's exactly the core of the subject. We have to believe, when we are waiting for a mathematical demonstration. It's a war, thousands of people will die. It's something extremely serious, wich will have unpredictable consequences, so the background has to be solid. All the reasons given by the current US admistration are for the moment neither verificated nor justifying a war yet. So, because of a lack of logical reasons, people are searching for others. It's also difficult to trust GWB when his main message to the Rest of the World since he's elected is "Screw you, guys". Yeah, I don't think the US has done a very good job of arguing its case. I was rather disappointed with Powell's response at the UN a week or two ago, and Rumsfeld tends to fly off the handle and say stupid things. But, the question we're dealing with is not "does the world support or oppose US action?", but rather, "why is there a difference in what the populations of different countries think?" So, arguments about "has the US made a good case for war" are a bit moot because it won't explain why the Polish and US population leans more towards the US government position than the French or German population. ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an enc

KaRl

Thanks for the links :) Brit wrote: I think the eastern european population is closer to the US stance than, say, the French or German stance - even if a majority of them aren't in favor. Disregarding the governments, the European opinion is quite united on this subject, whatever the country, eastern of western. Eastern countries are in a hurry to adhere to NATO, the only way to be protected from Russia. Because they don't trust europeans countries to ensure their security (and the recent History proves they aren't wrong), they see the US as the Savior, the Universal Protector. AFAIK, the only opinion worldwide who's sustaining the US stance is the US one. I was surprized, and began to read more closely the US newspapers on the web. From the outside, I noted this: one month ago, they were quiet all hawkish, claiming all the same arguments, carrying all the same ideas. No place there for a constestation or an alternative view, a real mediatic degradation (bourrage de crâne, literally "cranium stuffing"). They were so sure the war would start in a few days they were beginning to sell it to their readers. 2 weeks ago, some began to be more neutral (as the Washington Post) or even (relatively) critical (as the NY Times), slowly it's evolving. Let's see if a part of the US opinion will follow.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Brit

KaЯl wrote: Disregarding the governments, the European opinion is quite united on this subject, whatever the country, eastern of western. That's why I posted the links. Eastern europeans (the population, not the government) ARE leaning more pro-US than France. I'm a little surprised by the statement that the europeans are as united as you make them out to be. No, there isn't a lot of support, but to say european popular opinion is united sounds a little bit like wanting to believe that europe is united -- POLAND A TNS-OBOP survey showed 63 percent of Poles opposed sending troops to join any action against Iraq but 52 percent thought the country should give political backing to the United States for any such action. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30567527[^] I was thinking the other night about one more thing: the Black population in the US is more pro-peace than the general population. That phenomena can't really be explained in terms of "different media". Rather, it comes from a mistrust of white-America, and even a tendency to do some axe-grinding against white-America. Kokie[^] is an example of this phenomena. I was rather surprised how unsympathetic Black America was on 9/11, too. That's not to say all of them were unsympathetic, but, to a remarkable degree, they said things like "well you had it coming" (the "you" in that statement was emphasized to indicate an "us vs them" mentality). ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson

KaRl

Thanks to this post, I've read an excellent article Which gives keys to explain why there's a gap between our public opinions. Brit wrote: the "you" in that statement was emphasized to indicate an "us vs them" mentality That's why I sometimes wonder if the US are more a juxtaposition of ethnic groups than a real melting pot.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Brit

KaЯl wrote: the "you" in that statement was emphasized to indicate an "us vs them" mentality That's why I sometimes wonder if the US are more a juxtaposition of ethnic groups than a real melting pot. To a certain extent, that's true. It's most true, however, between Blacks and Whites because of historical reasons (slavery and segregation), but much less true of Asians and Hispanics, which integrate much better into general society. Blacks are still unsure about Whites and I think many of them go through a period of mistrust and hate (and some never leave that mental state). Racism is definately on the decline in the US. There is a certain degree of censorship and hostility towards racist attitudes which is a good thing. Unfortunately, there isn't much hostility towards racism against whites. Black racism against whites is much more tolerated - but that's not an "American" thing, just look at the world's response to Zimbabwe ("Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy!" - Robert Mugabe, who Chirac is meeting with today. One can scarcely imagine the reverse situation: a white president saying, "Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the black man, our real enemy!"). Here's some recent quotes http://www.amren.com/antiwht.htm[^] There are a couple reasons why black racism is tolerated: (1) people feel that blacks have legitimate reasons for hating whites, (2) black racism isn't as harmful to whites as white racism is against blacks, and (3) historically, racism against blacks has caused a lot of harm. Nevertheless, I feel that racism is something that gets passed around and unless it is removed, then black racism is going to revive white racism and we'll all be back where we started. Maybe the general idea is that if white-racism-against-blacks is ended that black-racism-against-whites will have no supporting basis (and will thus suffocate). I don't believe that's true because you don't actually need a legitimate reason to hate someone, and, besides, if racism against blacks ends completely, there are still lots of historical reasons which can feed racism against whites. ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an e

KaRl

What surprized me the most is the ethnic classification you make (Asians, hispanics, blacks, whites..). Here in France, after one or two generations isn't the origin of people important anymore, they are french. Racism, whatever the side, is unbearable, and is used as a tool by politicians without scruple to divide to reign. We all belong to the same race, the Human Race.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Brit

KaЯl wrote: What surprized me the most is the ethnic classification you make (Asians, hispanics, blacks, whites..). Here in France, after one or two generations isn't the origin of people important anymore, they are french. The flipside of what you're saying is that France has ethnic classifications until the first or second generation, but you're surprised that I use ethnic classifications? ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson

KaRl

I've got difficulties to make my point clear, sorry. Legally, there's no ethnic classification: somebody is french or is not Nonetheless, people may culturally make some, considering descendants of immigrants as not really french because their parents weren't. However, I also notice than somebody whose ancestors came for example in France from Italy at the beginning of the 20th century is not considered by others as an Italo-French, but as a French. Of course we have also racism there, mainly targetted against the minority coming from North-Africa. However I bet that in one or two generations will this discrimination disappear. On the contrary, US citizens seem to be proud of their origin enough to consider themselves as being part of a restricted community. Am I right?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Brit

KaЯl wrote: On the contrary, US citizens seem to be proud of their origin enough to consider themselves as being part of a restricted community. Am I right? Well, it first began with the term "African-American". Some people are rather irritated with the term, since, for the most part, people don't call themselves anything but "American" and don't know why blacks have to go and makeup a term that says, "I'm not a part of you". But, there is some logic behind it: Blacks have, historically, been excluded from the larger American society, so it does make some sense to indicate the different historical background in some cases. Now, some people might call themselves an Irish-American or Italian-American, but the terms don't carry much weight as far as their experience goes. It carries about as much relevency as saying "my great-great-great grandfather was ..." - in other words, its simply an interesting fact and it follows the same trend as the "African-American" or "Native American" terms (which do sometimes reflect something). But, as for me, although I am almost exclusively of Dutch descent, I don't call myself a Dutch-American. The term kinda sounds silly to me. But, quite a few people are interested in their ancestry in a "finding their roots" kind of a way. I have one friend who went to Ireland because she is of Irish decent. I think when people do this, they are looking for some connectedness to something. ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson