The difference is that whereas Britain emerged from the war heroic but broke, France had the legacy of collaboration to contend with. For France to recover its dignity by telling itself this story was imperative.
There is an obvious continuity in its foreign policy, outlook, and strategy. For Johnson, the emergence of an English-speaking alliance is a vindication of Brexit, Global Britain, and British exceptionalism more generally. He told me recently that he thinks the U. It left the EU to be more French. Johnson is not the first British leader to admire the tenets of Gaullism. He is a great man. Gaullist appreciation is not new for the current British prime minister, either.
It does not take much of a leap of imagination to see that Johnson would like Britain to take a leaf out of the French playbook. In effect, Johnson believes France would have done the same. One senior official at 10 Downing Street agreed with this assessment, at least backhandedly.
The two countries may have adopted different strategies to sustain their power, relevance, and independence, but both amount to an attempt to remain great. Both are reasonable; both have obvious limitations rooted in their relationship with the rest of the continent. France has lost its European leadership role to Germany, while Britain has given up trying to lead in Europe altogether and has yet to settle on what kind of relationship it does want with its closest neighbors.
When you step back, it is hard to avoid concluding that there are as many similarities between Britain and France as there are differences. The mirror they provide for each other has long projected back an image they wish to see, obscuring the reality of the challenge they both face. Skip to content Site Navigation The Atlantic. At the same time, it is said that Arab people direct their hate solely towards America, the country and its policy, not towards Americans, the ordinary citizens.
Yet, few works have empirically investigated the degree and causes of such societal anti-Americanism, as the focus generally is on a dislike of the United States as a political entity. First of all, and contrary to scholarly consensus, we find that both political and societal anti-Americanism are quite widespread in the Arab region see Figure 1 below. Although Arab people in general have an unfavourable position towards America, they are pretty wary of American people too.
What is more, political and societal anti-Americanism seem to be strongly related — too strongly to consider them disconnected opinions that have completely separate causes.
Our analyses also show that unfavourable attitudes towards America and Americans have similar causes. American interventions — be they troop deployment, military aid, or economic investments — help to explain why publics are not only more politically but also more societally anti-American.
This paints a two-sided picture. Anti-Americanism is partly caused by the actions undertaken by the US government. Of course, not all Arab citizens hold the same views or react similarly to American interventions.
This brings us to an especially bitter conclusion from the results — American interventionism most strongly squelches pockets of good will. When the US intervenes, it spawns anti-Americanism particularly among those groups poised to be more favourable to America ns. For instance, we found that non-Muslims are on average rather favourable towards America ns compared to Muslim citizens.
This example once more stresses that citizens across the Arab region are neither all the same, nor united in their hatred of America ns. Pockets of good will can be found across the region.
However, when the US intervenes, it not only strengthens the resolve of its enemies; it actually drives potential allies away. The simple conclusion of our study could be that Arab citizens detest America, and there is nothing the US can do about that. But that conclusion simplifies the complexities that those designing and assessing foreign policies would be wise to consider: the interrelatedness of societal and political anti-Americanism and their causes.
US interventions decrease empathy with US citizens, while this empathy with America ns might be an important barrier against not judging terrorist attacks. To keep pockets of good will, and perhaps even strengthen alliances, the US should think twice about repeating the same interventionist policies in the region.
Niels Spierings is an associate professor in the sociology department of Radboud University, and works on issues of inequality and participation, with particular foci on gender, politics, and Islam. He tweets at NielsSpierings. Religion, as a motive for hatred and violence, is not mentioned in this article. Jews and Muslims hate each others for religious reasons. If this is true, how can WE resolve this issue without issues of religion being addressed?
This position is certainly understandable. Recent riots, violence and corruption remind us that America is far from perfect. Patriotism, however, does not claim a country is without flaws. In fact, many people who identify as patriotic do not always feel proud of their government, their fellow citizens or even themselves.
As English author G. Today, that motivating force is rapidly receding. The medieval philosopher St. You would think knowledge isn't in short supply, considering members of Generation Z have grown up with smartphones and, according to Pew Research Center data , are on track to be the most highly educated generation yet.
A report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that more than two-thirds of top U. Alternatives: Does the Covid pandemic spell the end of public schools? This trend is disturbing, to say the least. This standard for history education is a cafeteria-style menagerie of classes that emphasize a global timeline over the events that have shaped America. The problem extends well beyond a simple lack of information.
0コメント