Since World War II, the United States experienced economic expansion that provided job opportunities for its growing population. This economic growth helped shape a society that became increasingly consumer oriented and remarkably affluent. At the same time, American products, technology, and culture were spread throughout the world. Many American citizens enjoyed the fruits of this prosperity and global trade, and they came to believe that the American way of life, its core values and beliefs, and its culture were good for the world. What Americans saw as sharing the benefits of the good life was, however, often viewed as a new form of imperialism. But rather than taking or occupying foreign lands, as happened in an earlier imperialist impulse, American culture, technology, economic presence, and its military permeated nearly every corner of the globe and seemingly dominated world affairs. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Americans began to question why the country was attacked and why many in the world held the United States in contempt. In the article I would like you to read (by clicking here), Fareed Zakaria, the international editor for the news magazine, Newsweek, offered an explanation of America’s place in the world.After reading the article, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: How do you think the average SUV owner would respond to this article? What does the author have to say that is positive about the United States? In what ways is he critical? Your thoughts…
8 comments:
Just at the beginning of the article i am apalled at what has happened to the people in Iraq, 60,000 were gassed, that's ridiculous and there doens't seem to be a reason for it either. Another thing it made me realize is that the United States is in this alone. I hadn't thought about who was helping us, but nobody is. An average person reading this would probably not understand everything that he worte about, but one thing that the author was positive about was how well the Americans reacted to the terrorism. He said that other countries were surprised at that. He also thought that the war in Iraq could possilby fix the problems within Iraq but he said that the war would not help other countries who looked down upon America have a better view of us. If anything, it has turned our own allies against us. He made a point that the war on terror could not be fought without the help from other countries around the world and that others have helped us, but we need to give back more in return.
in this article im an a little confused quite honestly.the author of this article stated that the only good thing that America did do was respond to the terrorist attack promptly.wow is America that dead?for the ones who prosper off their popularity and wealth we sure are miserable,because in the end were all alone in this.NO HELP AT ALL,well at least not public.as the new generation in this world i hope we get our lady America back on track,if not were S.O.L-
Part I
Reading just this section of the document, I was surprised to learn of how utterly isolated the US is in the war against Iraq. Though shocking, it is perfectly understandable. There was no solid cause that made it so that the US needed to go to war with Iraq, and all of the United State's previous allies were able to recognize this to some degree. Their fear towards America is completely understandable as well. If I was living in another county and I watched as the country slowly became dominated by American culture, I too would be just as fearful. The spread of culture does not seem very minor to me. Our previous allies are against us, Pro-American views are now deemed threatening or shameful [at least, that's how I see it]. The people of other countries disagree with the US as well, which though shocking at first, is understandable.
Part II
Although there was a lot of historical information in the part of the article on how America is/was different than other global powers before, one statement stood out to me the most: Why hasn't the rest of the world teamed up against America. The question itself seems like such an innocent question, perhaps one that even a small child could ask, but the answer itself is not. I find myself constantly questioning this now. It would be so very simple for the rest of the world to ban everything American, and to take the US down. So why haven't they? Why has the rest of the world allowed America to impose its culture upon other countries? What makes us so special that we have the right to do that? Perhaps it is because our technological advances have brought us to the point where everyone is so fearful of war with countries that have access to nuclear weapons [especially the US who has actually used the atomic bomb in the past] because they are afraid of nuclear warfare that will lead to the end of the world.
Part III
It seems as though Bush attempted to turn the world against the US, in my opinion. His constant policy was to act harshly and several times, irrationally. Even supporters of America suffered from harsh words and/or actions from the US, which more often than not, cause other countries that suffered from these situations to have intense disapproval and rage towards America. This was not unwarranted, in fact those countries had every right to feel offended. Of course, other countries were most likely observing these ongoing interactions and becoming more distrustful and resentful towards the Bush administration and in turn America as a whole.
Part IV
This part confused me in some parts. The writer states that, "Most of the problems the world faces today–from terrorism to AIDS to nuclear proliferation–will be solved not with less U.S. engagement but with more." The main part of this quote I understand. America has more resources and economic strength [not so much currently] and a history of leadership that if America were to pull a move of isolation as Japan had, the rest of the world is threatened with collapsing. This is not meant to be said arrogantly at all; rather, the facts are there. If all of American influence were to disappear, an enormous power-vacuum would emerge. The world would fight amongst itself to gain the position of a world power, which is an extremely disturbing thought. To regain good graces with the rest of the world however America needs to do something. All that the US has been doing is saying that they want to help out other countries yet makes no effort to actively due so. A good example is the one the writer gives about Pakistan. Although Pakistan helped out America, all America did to generously thank them for their help was to have "American tariffs continue to strangle their textile industry". What are we doing? Has America lost all sense of its previous morals? It would seem to be so to me. I always thought that when some other person offered help to you, that you do the same for them, and helping that person in turn. It seems to me that the only thing that America has been doing is running around accepting and/or demanding help, yet still - to make a crude analogy here - takes the lunch money from those they receive help from.
How do you think the average SUV owner would respond to this article?
I think it depends on who owns that SUV. If it was Americans, they wouldn't care or maybe even treasure it even more after reading this article, to hold true to their patriotism right? Then there are the foreigners, they probably despise their car or even call someone to throw it away, and have nothing to do with America. We are getting strong and it would be pretty scary to go into war against U.S. so those foreigners don't want to support U.S. unless they have a good reason for it. The W.T.C. was a good reason.
In the article, it is mentioned that some downers of the United States would be the attitude of wanting everyone to follow in our footsteps and having the feeling that the US needs to have a hand in as many places as it can. This doesn't necessarily mean actually taking over, but it's more of a cultural influence upon others that could be referred to as "Americanization". On the other hand, a positive would have to include this aspect portrayed in this quote from the article: "America helped get the rest of the world back on its feet by pumping out vast amounts of aid and private investment." This is mainly referring to the Marshall Plan in particular. The US has been trying to pump up the economies of others. Sure, it may be for deeper reasons such as supporting a capitalist economy versus a communist one, but it's still benefitting these other countries. The average Joe would probably look at this article and how it mentions 9/11 and would be stuck on terrorism and have a hard time focusing on anything else. One may even try to pull the blame game. However, you must read this article with an open mind and try to refrain from being biast in order to understand it.
wow i cant believe that 60,000 ppl were gassed in iraq!!! thats crazy. i had no clue that we would have that much territory, the map shox me.
First off I don't see The United States as an empire at all. Just because we a have military bases doesn't mean we are running those countries.
Also I have heard that Newsweek is a biased source, so it is hard to interpret the exact facts.
Also I don't understand why countries don't support the US, but still allow US corporations such as McDonald's to do business in their country? Wouldn't this mean that US globalization not be so popular?
again, my two cents... as a student of international relations and compartive foreign policy in college, i can tell you that nearly every scholar of foreign policy uses the term empire to describe the u.s. (why do you think roman EMPIRE issues fascinate americans so?). force projection, as we call it, is one of the signatures of empire, and anyone from stanford university to the pentagon to west point will tell you that.
in terms of support of the u.s., there is a huge difference between allowing mcdonalds and assisting the u.s. on political and military issues that many states around the world simply do not agree with and cannot support.
finally, Fareed Zakaria is one of the most respected journalists in the field of foreign policy issues. currently, i don't know of many that are more respected than him, inside the country or overseas. that's why i put this article up. it's actually from a scholarly collection of modern primary source documents pertaining to u.s. history.
Post a Comment