By Tabe Bergman, a PhD-student with the Institute of Communications Research at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign). His interests include political economy of the media, US media history and American Studies.
Is Anti-Americanism a valid definition of a point of view, or is it merely a gatekeeper, seeking to suppress criticism by excluding certain opinions from the ‘responsible’ debate? By examining the definitions attempted by a range of scholars and polemicists, Tabe Bergman seeks to find an answer.
Introduction
Whenever Bertrand Russell was accused of being anti-American, which was not infrequently, the English philosopher and social critic preferred to counter with a joke: ‘Anti-American? Half my wives were American.’ Not everyone laughed. Time magazine, which accused Russell of ‘an obsessive anti-Americanism,’ claimed to be ‘astonished’ by his irreverent quip.[i] This paper argues that Russell’s reaction was in fact informed by a sound understanding of the lack of concrete meaning of the term ‘anti-Americanism,’ and of the ideological function it serves. Russell, who twice married an American woman, realized that accusing someone of being anti-American amounts to nothing more than name-calling, to which an earnest reply is unnecessary, and even a bit ridiculous. The only possible serious answer consists of an analysis of the term itself, which in most instances is useless anyway; the people wielding the term obviously think it does have explanatory power, and/or are ideologically motivated and therefore in no mood to listen to reason.
The term anti-Americanism is a misconception, a vacuous, one-size-fits-all term for a phenomenon that is not really a phenomenon at all. Sure enough, there exists criticism of the United States and ‘America’ and worldwide there is disdain, and even hatred, for many aspects of American life (cultural, political et cetera), but lumping all these widely different opinions and emotions together in the term anti-Americanism discourages analysis and serves to stifle dissent. My case for abolishing the term anti-Americanism centers around two observations: firstly, the impossibility of conjuring up a workable definition of anti-Americanism; and, secondly, the nefarious uses that the term can therefore be put to, in what should be rational and lucid discussions of a wide-ranging number of important issues, for instance America, the US government, ‘America,’ modernization and imperialism. Let me proceed by discussing a number of failed attempts by distinguished scholars at reaching a useful definition, after which some scholars will be cited as to the anti-analytical and mystifying effects of the term ‘anti-Americanism.’
Attempts at definition
The real problem, of course, is not anti-Americanism but Americanism. In his book America Embattled, Richard Crockatt traces the latter term, and the expression ‘100 percent Americanism,’ back to president Theodore Roosevelt, who declared that Americanism signifies the ‘virtues of courage, honor, justice, truth, sincerity and strength.’ Americanism is thus, according to Crockatt, a ‘peculiarly intense expression of nationalism.’ This claim, that universal virtues to which all should aspire are quintessentially American, implies that an anti-American lacks in these virtues, although there is arguably little honor, justice and truth in – and much to fear from – extreme nationalism. No wonder that, as Crockatt notes, ‘projections of Americanism tend to invite all or nothing responses.’[ii]
‘Americanism’ is just as extreme as, and the root cause of ‘anti-Americanism’. Someone who uses the term anti-Americanism implicitly affirms his belief in American exceptionalism. The renowned anti-American Noam Chomsky points out that terms like anti-Americanism are ‘used only in totalitarian states. So, in the Soviet Union in the old days, the biggest crime was anti-Sovietism. But take any country that had any respect for its freedom, say Italy – suppose someone came out with a book in Italy called The anti-Italians, referring to people who criticize Italian government policy. Now, what would the reaction be in the streets of Milan? There’d be ridicule.’[iii] When the Soviet government and conformist Soviet intellectuals called dissidents anti-Sovietist, the Western intelligentsia of course snorted derisively. But a large part of that same intelligentsia continues to use the term anti-American as if it amounts to more than a term of abuse.
Scholars interested in the alleged phenomenon of anti-Americanism have struggled to come up with a workable definition of their object of study. Crockatt, who believes that there is actually something to the term, acknowledges that it is difficult to define. He even writes that it is necessary to put the term in between quotation marks – although he doesn’t do this himself. Crockatt believes that (‘)anti-Americanism(’) is something more encompassing and more absolute than criticism of American policies, and that it implies ‘irrationalism and resistance to facts that may run counter to prejudices.’ He cites the historian Theodore Zeldin, who wrote that ‘to hate a whole nation, to love a whole nation, is a clear symptom of hysteria.’[iv] Very true, but this definition renders the term practically useless, for very few people if any qualify. Even Osama bin Laden and North-Korean leader Kim Jong-il are not ‘100 percent anti-Americans.’ The latter reportedly loves Hollywood movies – he supposedly is the proud owner of 20,000 of them[v] – and the former reportedly not only has (had?) a fascination for an icon of American pop culture, Whitney Houston, but loves (loved?) the TV-series The Wonder Years, Miami Vice and, yes, MacGyver.[vi] And, as Crockatt notes, at least one journalist came away from an interview with Bin Laden with the clear notion that the terrorist leader didn’t oppose America’s rights, freedoms and prosperity, but its foreign policy. There is no doubt though that Bin Laden’s opposition to America (or should one say the United States?) is extreme. The founding statement of Al Qaeda called on Muslims to kill Americans and their allies, be they military or civilian.[vii]
According to Crockatt, anti-Americanism comes in many different forms and has many roots. ‘It is more useful to think of it as a family of related attitudes than as a single entity.’ This definition of course leaves the metaphorical door open to many uncouth guests; it is hard to think of any kind of criticism that cannot be made to fit into it. Criticism of US policy, Crockatt writes, may not always be anti-American, but it might be the beginning of anti-Americanism.[viii] Crockatt’s attempts at defining anti-Americanism leave us no wiser. It can be many things. Do we want to give all those things the same name?
Richard Kuisel writes that in determining what constitutes anti-Americanism, the nature and range of the grievances and the intensity of feeling are essential.[ix] This definition shows the subjectivity of the term. Criticism of American foreign policy is not anti-American, according to Kuisel, but contemptuous criticism is. The distinction is of course in the eye of the beholder and is informed by the beholder’s own opinions on American foreign policy, a subject on which distinguished scholars sharply disagree. Kuisel obviously believes that contemptuous criticism is by definition wrong and hence anti-American. (C’est le ton qui fait l’anti-américain?) But what is contemptuous to some is reasoned and reasonable criticism to others. There is obviously no use for such a subjective term like ‘anti-American’ in any kind of debate on important public issues. Instead of leveling the accusation ‘anti-American’ at all those contemptuous critics (and George W. Bush has certainly succeeded in increasing their numbers; let’s hope Barack Obama will take another path), Kuisel should use arguments and facts to prove them wrong.
Kuisel believes that ‘anti-Americanism, despite its lack of intellectual rigor, can illuminate trends and issues in social, economic, political, diplomatic and cultural affairs – making it a phenomenon of considerable historical importance.’[x] He doesn’t explain how the label anti-Americanism clarifies all those kinds of trends and issues in all those different affairs he mentions and I can’t imagine what he means. Does applying the label ‘French anti-Americanism’ to a certain trend in French cultural affairs shed light on that trend? Does it explain anything? In fact, one might argue that it does the opposite, namely that it mystifies that trend. Like Sartre, I still don’t understand what anti-Americanism means.[xi]
‘Anti-Americanism, if we choose to retain the term at all, should be seen as a weak and ambivalent complex of anti-feelings,’ writes Rob Kroes.[xii] It seems a logical impossibility that a complex of anti-feelings can ever be ambivalent. By definition, anti-feelings leave no room for ambivalence, not even when they are grouped in a ‘complex.’ Years earlier, he wrote that anti-Americanism ‘never appears to imply – as the word suggests – a rejection in toto of America, of its society, its culture, its power.’[xiii] (emphasis in original) Again, this definition is very broad and thus vague: what is the difference between a ‘normal’ person who is critical of some aspects of the very broad concept of ‘America,’ and an anti-American? As with Kuisel’s definition, it seems that the position of the beholder is the determining factor here.
Kroes makes a distinction between ‘cultural’ and ‘political’ anti-Americans. The former reject cultural trends that they identify as American, but admire America’s ‘energy, innovation, prowess, as inspired by its message of optimism.’[xiv] And yet: are there people who (partly) reject American culture and do not admire those other characteristics that Kroes identifies as ‘American?’ One would assume so. Are they anti-American? ‘Political anti-Americans,’ according to Kroes, reject perceived US imperialism but admire American culture. Again, such a simple distinction does not appear very useful. There must be plenty of people on this planet who reject American imperialism and lack admiration for American culture. It can well be argued that those people are on the whole more critical of America than the ‘political anti-Americans,’ who at least admire American culture, yet in Kroes’s classification they don’t seem to qualify as anti-Americans. And how much antipathy for American imperialism qualifies as anti-American? Does one have to oppose both the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or only the latter? Does opposing only the former suffice? Is it possible not to hold ambivalent feelings towards anything so broad and pervasive as American culture? Note that Kroes’s definition derives from how the term is employed (‘anti-Americanism never seems to imply…’), but as the meanings given to anti-Americanism vary widely, this seems an approach that will not lead to conceptual clarity. As Kroes rightly remarks, Americanism is a ‘gate-keeping device, a rhetorical figure, rallying the initiates in rituals of self-affirmation.’[xv] The same, I would argue, applies to the term anti-Americanism.
One of the leading scholars on anti-Americanism is Paul Hollander. He defines it as an unjustly negative attitude towards America, a bias not unlike racism or sexism.[xvi] The merit of this definition lies in the fact that Hollander makes explicit that criticism of the US that he regards as (partly) unfounded, constitutes anti-Americanism. An anti-American is someone who disagrees with Hollander. Anti-Americanism, according to Hollander, is almost always irrational. The implication is that there is no need to argue with an anti-American. The label serves as a sign: we need not take this person’s ‘arguments’ seriously. It is indeed a gate-keeping device. Ross and Ross write that ‘for Hollander, American self-criticism, or opposition by Americans to US foreign and domestic policy, can be understood only as a betrayal of an exemplary birthright.’[xvii] Instead of trying to show his ideological enemies wrong, Hollander resorts to name-calling in an effort to intimidate them. Surely this is an intellectual misdemeanor, if not an all-out crime. Hollander’s is an extreme nationalist position.
The controversy about ‘America’ is about values, facts and their meaning, about modernity, capitalism, freedom of expression, idealism, foreign policy and so on. Ultimately it is about what ‘America’ is and what it symbolically represents.
As an aside: the term anti-globalization surely is a misnomer, as anti-globalists do not reject globalization itself but the form it has taken and still takes, which according to them deepens global inequality. Hence the usage in Dutch of the term ‘andersglobalisten,’ which is meant to emphasize that the ‘anti-globalists’ are calling for a different kind of globalization.
Mary Nolan refuses to ‘offer a rigorous definition of anti-Americanism … for (it) is a polemical, elastic and contradictory concept. It refers in some cases to a resentment and a fear of modernity that is informed by anti-capitalism. in others to a jealousy of American lifestyles, prosperity, freedom, and power, and in still others to a criticism of the actions of America and the costs of modernity American-style.’[xix] What, we might rightly ask, does anti-Americanism not refer to? Nolan doesn’t explain the merit of such an elastic and contradictory concept in academic debate. In the same vein, Harry Harootunian calls anti-Americanism a ‘slippery category.’ All those vague definitions make the definition like the one by a former head of the French think-tank Fondation Saint-Simon seem attractive in its clarity. Anti-Americanism, according to him, is ‘the jealous fantasy of the poor vis-à-vis the rich.’[xx]
Kristin Ross, in her discussion of anti-Americanism in France from the sixties up until the 2003 invasion of Iraq, describes it as ‘something akin to a project: the attempt to counteract the ideological slippage toward oligarchy and the rule of experts that dominated the 1980s.’[xxi] Anti-Americanism, in her view, is informed by rational opposition to American policy. She adopts this essentially derogatory term as a badge of honor. However much I sympathies with her political convictions, still it seems a bad idea to adopt the term anti-Americanism and give it a positive connotation. It will only create more misunderstandings. The term should be excluded from serious debate.
Russell Berman opines that ‘it is a frequent misunderstanding to treat the term “anti-Americanism” as a designation for any opposition to a particular policy of the US government or to the influence of American society and culture. If that broad definition were to apply, then reasonable critics of policy matters or cultural influence would fit the bill.’[xxii] Anti-Americanism, according to him, is an obsession. Anti-Americans are people who employ ‘sweeping generalizations and hostile innuendo.’ In anti-Americans ‘the obsessive thought structures of prejudice and stereotype prevail.’[xxiii] Interestingly enough, Berman considers a dislike of jazz music ‘embedded in a racist dismissal of African Americans’ an example of anti-Americanism. From this it follows that the prevailing culture in America was, for a long time, anti-American, but Berman does not pursue this unwelcome line of thought. Apparently, he does not consider Americans who dislike jazz and African Americans to be anti-American. But when Europeans dislike jazz because it originated in African American culture, we can be sure that we are dealing with anti-Americans.
This example illustrates that what many Americans for a long time regarded as anti-(or un-)American, namely jazz as ‘black’ music, is now quite generally considered very American indeed. It thus shows the essentially political nature of the term anti-Americanism. What is truly ‘American’ is of course to a large extent defined by domestic elites. Their definition will naturally reflect their class interests, at least to the extent that elites aren’t challenged by for instance the press, opposition movements and intellectuals. The term anti-Americanism should therefore be approached with the utmost suspicion.
Berman writes that opposing the 2003 war in Iraq is not anti-American, but when that kind of criticism is ‘accompanied by a general dismissal of “American conditions,” one has to recognize that anti-Americanism has come into play.’[xxiv] Thus, Berman effectively dismisses all systemic criticism of for instance American political institutions as anti-American, as ‘irrational prejudice.’ This far-reaching identification with not just ‘America’ but with Washington politics is typical for many wielders of the term anti-American. Without a doubt this is one of the main grounds on which dissident intellectuals like Russell and Chomsky have objected to its use. They realized from first-hand experience what it means to be called anti-American, how it functions to end all rational discussion. Similarly, Kroes writes that at one point he found himself the target of accusations that he was anti-American. As a result of his antipathy towards the foreign policy of the administration of George W. Bush, he was on a personal level ‘facing the question of when a stance critical of specific American policies becomes anti-American.’ Anti-Americanism, according to Kroes is more encompassing than vehement disagreement.
Anti-Americanism typically proceeds from specific areas of disagreement to larger frames of rejection, seeing particular policies or particular events as typical of a more general image of America. Anti-Americanism in that sense is mostly reductionist, seeing only the simplicity of the cowboy and Texas provincialism in President George W. Bush’s response to terrorism, or the expansionist thrust of American capitalism in Bush’s Middle-East policies. And so on, and so forth. Entire repertoires of stereotyped Americas can be conjured up to account for any contemporary trans-Atlantic disagreements.[xxv]
There are echoes of Berman here. Fundamental criticism of America and/or ‘America’ is anti-American. The danger of these kinds of definitions is that America is associated with certain ideals and values that are assumed to be permanent. America is democratic and free and capitalist, so people who oppose America are by definition anti-democratic, anti-freedom and anti-capitalist. These values, to the extent to which they are indeed values (I have my doubts about capitalism), and do indeed apply to America, are of course not stable assets. They need to be defended. Criticism should therefore be welcomed in principle and should then be evaluated to see if it indeed has any merit.
Kroes points out that: ‘Too often the cry of anti-Americanism is used as a cheap debating trick to silence voices of unwelcome criticism.’[xxvi] Indeed. Scholars who warn, for instance, against the erosion of civil liberties in the US, against the superficiality of American democracy on the federal level, and against the massive amounts of state subsidies for big corporations, while cutbacks are being made on social security, run the risk of being called anti-American. We should, as a small token of our appreciation for their efforts, fight these attempts at intimidation by exposing the selfish agenda that all too often hides behind the usage of the term anti-Americanism. The least we can do is not use it ourselves.
To the extent to which those who wield the term anti-Americanism identify the opposite (‘Americanism’) with the US government, the use of the term is especially disingenuous. Not only because one might argue that distrust of one’s government is an admirable American tradition, but mainly because the assumed link between the state and Americanism stays implicit. Governments should be thought of as the main danger to civil liberties, not their guardians. We should count our blessings; the administration of George W. Bush has refreshed our memory on this issue.
Marcus Cunliffe noted in the mid-1980s that there is a ‘cultural disdain for some aspects of American life, sometimes cranky and ill-informed.’ (my emphasis) Yet, according to him, American popular culture was at that point in time far more accepted in Europe than ‘a generation ago’. Moreover, European critics of the US often draw from critics inside the US, while there are also staunch defenders of the United States in Europe. Why then call this aversion in some European quarters to American popular culture anti-American? The term, as Cunliffe recognized, has a highly pejorative meaning. In his opinion, ‘so-called anti-Americanism is sometimes a justifiable if not necessarily irrefutable complaint against some element or other of Americanness.’ Anti-Americanism can be ‘a perfectly normal manifestation of dislike for others.’ Perhaps, he continued, ‘a type of arrogant prejudice that will hear no good of the US … can be dubbed “anti-American.”’[xxvii] Note the hesitation and the inverted commas around anti-American. If anti-Americanism can be a normal emotion and an irrational prejudice, does it make sense to use Cunliffe’s confusing definition?
August Fry’s definition of anti-Americanism again clearly shows the subjectivity of the term. ‘I do not consider all critical comment on the United States anti-American, only that which reveals ignorance and emotion I take to be out of proportion to its object.’ (my emphasis) From the tone of his essay it is obvious that criticism leveled against the US is an emotional issue for him, as he is an American, and he admits this frankly. Many comments about the US that Europeans consider relatively neutral ‘will have a sharp edge for me, an unpleasantly sharp edge in many cases.’ In that respect he exemplifies millions of Americans, including many scholars. For him, the anti-Americans are irrational and driven by emotions. They assert dubious criticism ‘with great feeling.’ He calls leftist anti-Americans ‘embittered,’ and he thinks that anti-Americans in general are often driven by jealousy. ‘Anti-Americanism in many of its forms is the disappointment resulting from the fact that America is not Europe.’
Fry thus considers irrational criticism of the US anti-American, and that kind of criticism of course does not merit a response. Fry writes that he once saw a woman on Dutch television sharply criticizing the US because of the sale of coal to Krupp for a profit during
World War II. He comments that many people have ‘heard similar stories in America as well as in Europe … they are not very significant although they are always impossible to refute.’[xxviii] Fry’s emotional resistance to unwelcome facts (which he seems to think are irrelevant by definition) is remarkable but not uncommon. He clearly uses the term anti-American as a gate-keeping device: until here and no further.
Denis Lacorne and Tony Judt give the following definition of anti-Americanism: ‘It can be defensive or reactive, rational or irrational, popular or elitist, political or cultural; it can center on economic or religious issues or on no particular issue at all. In its mildest form, anti-Americanism is merely criticism of some American policies or social characteristics. At the other extreme, it expresses a real clash of civilizations, the complete rejection of anything and everything “American,” to the point of denying that there even is such a thing as an American culture or an American democracy.’[xxix] Everybody, including Americans themselves, fits into this remarkably broad category! Who cannot say after reading their definition that: ‘Nous sommes tous anti-américains,’ to invert the comment made by the editor-in-chief of the French paper Le Monde, two days after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Considering all these unsatisfactory attempts at defining what constitutes anti-Americanism, a few observations stand out. Firstly, many scholars who wield the term themselves deem the concept to be a very complex and contradictory one. Kroes even suggests that the term should perhaps be abandoned. Secondly, as I hope to have made clear, not one of the reviewed definitions can serve as an adequate starting point for a discussion about America, ‘America,’ US foreign policy and other very important issues. The term is essentially subjective. Anti-Americans are always ‘the others.’ Anti-Americanism is often deemed to be unjust criticism of the US, but unjust criticism should be dissected and refuted, not disposed of by limiting the ‘responsible’ debate to all those who have a reputation for not being anti-American. Broad definitions of anti-Americanism do not solve this problem, but exacerbate it by including sometimes even straightforward criticism of anything deemed ‘American’ as anti-American. Actually, there is a (weak) case to be made for narrow and clear definitions. Then at least we more or less know what we are talking about. But these narrow definitions also have major defects. Consider again the definition by the head of the Fondation Saint-Simon: anti-Americanism is ‘the jealous fantasy of the poor vis-à-vis the rich.’ The danger here is that all kinds of criticism of America will be labeled as stemming from jealousy, which leaves us where we started. Definitions that proclaim anti-Americanism to be an irrational bias don’t suffice, because the question always remains: ‘What is irrational?’ Prejudices about the US should properly be called just that. There is no reason to assign criticism of America a special status by using the ‘anti-‘construction. Doing this reeks of a belief in American exceptionalism. And, Americanism can mean so many things that it, just like its counterpart, is too vague to be of any use.
I have already touched upon the nefarious ways in which the term anti-Americanism is often used and, in conclusion, I would like to briefly expand on this point.
Use of the term
The term anti-Americanism has a strongly pejorative connotation, which is often taken advantage of to discredit ideological opponents. As Kristin Ross writes:
Adversaries of the ‘Weberian-Parsonian “value-free” social science – critical intellectuals or those engaged in social movements – could be disqualified in advance as flaming ideologues, irresponsible, hellbent on swimming against the tide of history or, in a word, “anti-American.” And to be called anti-American in France in the 1980s was tantamount to being accused of fascist tendencies, Stalinist tendencies, or both at the same time.[xxx]
According to Linda Gordon, ‘the anti-American-values epithet is manipulated as a club to stigmatize and suppress opposition.’[xxxi] As noted, Kroes concedes that the term is too often used to stifle criticism. Even a staunch believer in the value of the term like Crockatt admits this: ‘On occasions, the term is used as a political weapon to discredit an opponent…’[xxxii]
Fry makes clear that he consciously uses the term to flag criticism that, in his mind, simply goes too far. A lot of the European criticism of Reagan’s America was, by many Americans, constructed as being anti-American, writes Fry.[xxxiii] This way they tried to make themselves immune from outside criticism, just or unjust, that was painful to them. Supposedly anti-American comments are not the real problem though, but the intense nationalistic feelings that many Americans cherish. Americanism lies at the root of the problem of anti-Americanism.
The term anti-Americanism does indeed have a gate-keeping function. It serves to exclude certain opinions from the ‘responsible’ debate. Often, the use of the term anti-American is meant to make sure that concepts that many people associate with ‘America’ (e.g. freedom, democracy, capitalism) are left unexamined. We should bear in mind that anyone who does not oppose this tactic is complicit in making sure that those values cannot be adequately defended. ‘Anti-Americanism’ is essentially a political and subjective term. If freedom of speech and democratic debate are indeed true American values, then one may rightly ask the question: ‘Is there anything more anti-American than accusing someone (anyone) of being anti-American?’
Most of the concepts we use in discussions on important public issues – even the more or less problematic ones – we cannot do without. ‘Freedom’ and ‘democracy,’ concepts that can be hard to define precisely, spring to mind. But ‘anti-Americanism’ is a superfluous, misleading term. What is commonly called anti-Americanism is in reality unjust or just criticism of a certain aspect of America, and as such it can and should be rationally and critically analyzed.
For another viewpoint on this issue, read Marwan Obeidat’s article
Beyond American Borders: The Middle East and the Enigma ofAnti-American Sentiments in the Aftermath of 9/11 Marwan M. Obeidat provides a critical and descriptive approach to this fundamentally complex set of Arab and Islamic antipathetic and adverse sentiments against America as it sheds light on its effects on American culture and citizens, eventually to “seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” to use the words of President Obama.
Literature
Berman, Russell A., Anti-Americanism in Europe: a cultural problem. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2004
Crockatt, Richard, America Embattled. London: Routledge, 2003
Feinberg, Barry, and Kasrils, Ronald, Bertrand Russell’s America. New York: The Viking Press, 1974
Hollander, Paul, Anti-Americanism. Critiques at Home and Abroad 1965-1990. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992
Judt, Tony and Locorne, Denis (eds.), With US or Against US. Studies in Global anti-Americanism. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005
Kroes, Rob, ‘European Anti-Americanism: What’s New?’ in The Journal of American History, September 2006, Vol. 93 Issue 2, pages 417-431
—- and Rossem, Maarten van (eds.), Anti-Americanism in Europe. Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1986
Kuisel, Richard F., Seducing the French. The Dilemma of Americanization. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993
Ross, Andrew and Ross, Kristin, Anti-Americanism. New York: New York University Press, 2004
Websites
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020126.htm (consulted on 2/17/2009)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-401627/Obsessed-bin-Laden-wanted-kill-Whitney-Houstons-husband.html (consulted on 2/17/2009)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060705/NorthKorea_FactFile_060705/20060705/ (consulted on 2/17/2009)
[i] Feinberg, Barry, and Kasrils, Ronald, Bertrand Russell’s America. New York: The Viking Press, 1974, pages 11 and 13
[ii] Crockatt, Richard, America Embattled. London: Routledge, 2003, pages 49-51
[iii] ‘The Campaign of Hatred Against Us,’ interview with Noam Chomsky by Ticky Fullerton on Four Corners, January 26, 2002. Transcript at http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020126.htm (consulted on 2/17/2009)
[iv] Crockatt, page 43
[v] See http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060705/NorthKorea_FactFile_060705/
20060705/ (consulted on 2/17/2009)
[vi] A self-proclaimed former ‘sex slave’ of Osama bin Laden claims this in her biography.
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-401627/Obsessed-bin-Laden-wanted-kill-Whitney-Houstons-husband.html (consulted on 2/17/2009)
[vii] Crockatt, page 44
[viii] Crockatt, page 44
[ix] Kuisel, Richard F., Seducing the French. The Dilemma of Americanization. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, page 8
[x] Kuisel, page 9
[xi] Kuisel, page 7
[xii] Kroes, Rob, ‘European Anti-Americanism: What’s New?’ in The Journal of American History, September 2006, page 426
[xiii] Kroes, Rob, and Rossem, Maarten van (eds.), Anti-Americanism in Europe. Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1986, page 40
[xiv] Kroes and Van Rossem, page 41
[xv] Kroes and Van Rossem, page 40
[xvi] Hollander, Paul, Anti-Americanism. Critiques at Home and Abroad 1965-1990. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, page VIII
[xvii] Ross, Andrew and Ross, Kristin, Anti-Americanism. New York: New York University Press, 2004, page 11
[xviii] Kroes and Van Rossem, page 20
[xix] Ross and Ross, page 126
[xx] Ross and Ross, page 149
[xxi] Ross and Ross, page 154
[xxii]Berman, Russell A., Anti-Americanism in Europe: a cultural problem. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2004, page 33
[xxiii] Berman, page 34
[xxiv] Berman, page 34
[xxv] Kroes, page 419
[xxvi] Kroes, page 419
[xxvii] Kroes and Van Rossem, page 33
[xxviii] Kroes and Van Rossem, page 143
[xxix] Judt, Tony and Locorne, Denis (eds.), With US or Against US. Studies in Global anti-Americanism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, page 2
[xxx] Ross and Ross, page 150
[xxxi] Ross and Ross, page 273
[xxxii] Crockatt, page 46
[xxxiii] Kroes and Van Rossem, page 139
American Studies Resource Centre 