Hugo chavez is dead

[GroobySteven]

I don't feel we're any better than the UK where these matters are concerned, because I'm not one of those Americans who likes to ignore the ugly parts of our history. So I suppose my question is, where do UKers get this selectiive memory issue when it comes to imperialistic foreign policy? Secondly, why is it so strident and intense? I don't understand why despite history, Americans have a generally positive view of the UK, but it seems like the British never pass up the chance to point fingers and call us scum
Just a civil, reasonable question. I'm not attacking anyone.

It's a good point (and this thread is soon to be moved to the political section).
Being a Brit who has lived and worked in the US for almost half my life, I have a good perspective on both and your comments above, I've heard multiple times. It's simple. You are bringing up points on Imperialism which are historical and clearly out of date in modern times. It's akin to bringing up historical facts of American forces genocide on Native Americans, their country being built on slavery or the fact that some states practiced cannibalism, fairly recently.

The US came into the WW2 fairly late (and through being forced into it) and their has been ongoing issues with their insistence (perhaps not unjustly) about how they "saved our asses" yet made a huge amount of money out of that war and I think there is probably some issues left over from there but the real reasons why British people complain about the US politics are multiple fold.
The US has meddled and bullied (and often with the UK governments help, even though the majority of people in the UK didn't want it - and in coming elections voted against those parties) in many foreign policy disasters. Their "chicken-licken" war against Communism was puerile and going to war with Iraq (and dragging the UK into it despite most public not wanting to - thanks Tony!) under the excuse of of weapons of mass destruction was extremely damaging. I also think many in the UK are disgusted at the way subsequent UK governments have bowed to US pressure, so much of the ire is unfairly places at the feet of the US when it the UK government could have listened to it's people.

Finally, and with no disrespect intended - it's because every time we see the US on the news, you come across as a bunch of absolutely mental, crazies. I see this in the US news also. There are things that go on in the USA which just seem so outrageous, immature, out of touch and over-the-top that the rest of the world, find it hard to see the US as a credible country. From the polarization of politicians and the inability to find middle ground, from the amount of gun deaths (and the unwillingness to blame it on guns despite the statistics), from the apparent on-going racial issues/tensions, the anti-abortion lobby and the terrorism that goes with that, vote fixing and allegations of stolen elections, the madness of the health and pharmacutical industries not allowing booze to 21 yr olds but allowing them to go to war at 18, the hypocrisies on human rights, etc.

On the other hand, the UK loves (obsesses) about many US things from music and entertainment, much of the culture and we're possibly one of the larger tourist groups to visit the US. American's generally get a warm welcome in the UK. Perhaps it's because we see a warped refection of what we could become ... or what we once were.

The second greatest trick the US ever pulled, was convincing the world that they were the "greatest country on the Earth".
The greatest trick the US ever pulled was convincing their own people, that they were the "greatest country on Earth".

While most nation's people are patriotic, only the US people appear to be as blind as some dictatorship's countries. The US is the only Western country where I've ever heard people who criticized the government being called "unpatriotic" and to "leave the country if they don't like it."

[mastersack]

hi may i bottom

[Bigshot88]

Prospero, senchai, all good input and good points that help me see the other perspective. As an American living in America it's easy to forget how pervasive our culture is in other countries and how crazy a lot of it must seem.
Part of the problem is I'm a liberal, which has sadly become a dirty word in our discourse, so much to the point where I would probably lose my job if my supervisors knew my politics. I can't even discuss things like abortion, marriage equality, or religion with them. Believe me, I am aware of how the conservative movement makes us look as a country. It frightens me. But I also can feel things churning beneath the surface indicating that the average, centrist American is just about fed up with the extremes' domination of the discussion.
This does help me understand why the criticism is so vehement and current. Though it would help to remember that average Americans like myself are nieither on the extreme politically nor are we roaming the halls of power where these sorts of subversive, machiavellian political plots are hatched.
Thanks for the articulate and civil discourse.

[GroobySteven]

Bigshot - you are hitting the nail right on the head. I've so many US friends who are like you and sick of the hijacking of their politics by specific interest groups on both sides of the fence, it's time that the US had a middle-ground party.
It beggars belief to many, that the word "liberal" has became so demonized and I find this particularly infuriating.
I think what's important for someone like yourself to understand, is that Brits only get what they know of Americans via TV which of course are often extremes (the same as Americans think we all drink tea non-stop, have terrible teeth and are either happy chimney sweeps, related to the Queen or Mr.Bean). Many Brits have visited the US - and most of us know, that it's the extremes which cause the problems and also create the stereotypes.

[Stavros]

I love the UK and have lots of friends there, and as a man of English descent I consider myself a kinsman to them. But I notice that Brits seem to feel incredibly entitled to bile spititing hatred of US foreign policy considering that we learned at the feet of the masters. 90 percent of the ethnic and political struggles in the middle east and africa exist because some Englishman took a pencil and drew a line on a map during the colonial period, cynically seeking to divide groups to prevent them from forming strong national identities. Or how about when they flooded China with opium in order to control tea prices, nearly causing the whole country to collapse into ruin as a result
I don't feel we're any better than the UK where these matters are concerned, because I'm not one of those Americans who likes to ignore the ugly parts of our history. So I suppose my question is, where do UKers get this selectiive memory issue when it comes to imperialistic foreign policy? Secondly, why is it so strident and intense? I don't understand why despite history, Americans have a generally positive view of the UK, but it seems like the British never pass up the chance to point fingers and call us scum
Just a civil, reasonable question. I'm not attacking anyone.

You are right that memory is selective -historically, North America was more important to the British Empire economically thany any other colonial region, and while India has retained its historic fascination there aren't many people familiar with Warren Hastings, 'the Mutiny' or Gandhi's campaign against the Salt Tax. The history of the British in Africa is even less understood, there were no major commemorations of the second Boer War (1899-1902) ten or so years ago -perhaps because it was a military failure: a war that was supposed to be over in a month dragged on for more than two years and at the time was the most expensive military campaign the British had undertaken since the Napoleonic Wars, and exposed the strategic weaknesses in the high command that were not dealt with before the 1914-1918 War, and can even be seen in the mess we got into in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years.

Some issues, like Mau Mau appear in the news but is poorly understood, and your remark about lines on a map forgets that the lines in the Middle East were drawn with the connivance of the French and that before the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 the British were doing secret deals with the Russians (Imperial), the French and the Italians which divided up the Ottoman Empire for their own benefit. The lamentable history of three Anglo-Afghan Wars since the 19th century never exercised its warning over successive British governments, and anyway Tony Blair speaking to the US Congress in 2003 said in effect that history has no meaning. His action in Iraq was based on what he thought was achievable, and was not 'distorted' by Britain's record in creating the state after the First World War.

For my generation, the Vietnam War was the one event that undermined my image of the USA as it wanted to be seen, possibly because we did not know at the time of the atrocities the US troops committed against the Japanese - it was made worse by the fact that militarily the US forces were unable to achieve anything decisive while in the process dragging in Cambodia and Laos and looking humiliated in the process when these states became Communist.

Most of us admire the US for its attitudes to democracy, the greater flexibility of society and the economy and the riches of its culture, yet cannot understand why the values of freedom and democracy are and have been left behind when it is in 'the national interest' to support some ruthless dictator abroad because he is 'on our side' -the history of the relations between the US and Saudi Arabia ought to be an embarrassment. There have also been some positives, in both British and American Imperialism, but the modern world is often characterised by its self-absorbed anxieties instead of its successes, or maybe we take the advances of science and technology for granted. We really should be amazed every time we turn on a computer or smart phone.

Chavez on one level may have been good for Venezuela, but most states are complex organisms and on balance I think he took the country in the wrong direction, but we shall wait and see what happens next.

[irvin66]

El gran comandante, el presidente ha muerto, viva el presidente!

[mattavs1]

Chavez was a great man, one of the few leaders who ever really did something for the poor. Absolute nonsense that he was a dictator. He won 4 elections in a row, the last time just a few months ago with more votes than ever.

[Human-After-All]

He was certainly on his way to dictatorship.

Ridiculous thing to say.

Even US officials like Jimmy Carter applauded Venezuelan democracy. What are you basing this notion on?

Venezuela had its problems like an extremely high crime rate for example, and Chavez did court some unsavoury allies (then again, the US and the UK back up the dictatorial Saudi Royal Family as well as the autocratic regime in Egypt and elsewhere (until the writing was on the wall for those regimes.

The only people I've ever heard with gripes against Chavez are Venezuelans who lost money after the Bolivarian revolution, the kind of people who backed the previous regimes and the kind of people who backed the 2002 coup, (eg: people who's families lost money when oil was nationalised). The fact is, real progress was made under Chavez administration.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...r-8522329.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...elan-president

[Ben]

Chavez was a great man, one of the few leaders who ever really did something for the poor. Absolute nonsense that he was a dictator. He won 4 elections in a row, the last time just a few months ago with more votes than ever.

It's true. He did win again and again and again... and again.
I'd just add that all forms of concentrated power -- whether it's the CEO of a transnational corporation or the President of the U.S. -- isn't healthy for a meaningful democratic society. (I mean, in the U.S. and Britain and a slew of other so-called First World countries [really state-corporate-capitalist countries] we've what should be called: the unelected dictatorship of Capital.... I mean, in America about 70 percent of the population have no say or sway on public policy. None. Does that really sound like a meaningful and profound democratic society?
And the further up the income ladder you go, well, you get more influence. And at the very top -- think: the Kochs, Adelson, Pete Peterson -- you basically get what you want.
Read: Affluence and Influence by Martin Gilens.

Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle

The Venezuelan leader was often marginalized as a radical. But his brand of socialism achieved real economic gains

[irvin66]

Chavez was a great man, one of the few leaders who ever really did something for the poor. Absolute nonsense that he was a dictator. He won 4 elections in a row, the last time just a few months ago with more votes than ever.

I agree with you. He did much for the poor that was pressed in the shit and they were never seen. He was a father of the nation that made the poor and the landless were given a new hope for the future. Those who say he was a dictator is a reactionary imperialist fools who are brainwashed by capitalism...