NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I'm looking at this as a paper topic, and I've typed up a Thesis-sort of thing and an Abstract to work from. I'd love some criticism and advice, and any insights you might bring to the matter. Thankymuch.

Also, if you notice any outright typos, grammar mistakes or otherwise, please bring them to my attention. Grammar Nazism is strongly supported!

Thesis: Anti-Americanism is fundamentally a deep seated phenomenon, borne of the development of a unipolar global system. It is not only a reaction to American policies, but a deep seated unease at global power centered in one nation.

Abstract: Since the end of the cold war, the collapse of the Soviet system and destruction of the autocratic regimes of the Eastern bloc, a fundamental mistrust of the United States – the sole

surviving superpower – has developed in many countries. To ascribe the cause for this phenomenon to a single factor is an error. Instead multiple causes must be thoroughly evaluated. The most

pronounced aspect of anti-Americanism is criticism of The United States' often brusque foreign policy, which is commonly perceived as America using its military to coerce other nations. This was

the case during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and was primarily because of the increasingly destructive American war in Vietnam. While opposition to such foreign policies is apparently an

important factor in the Anti-American case, it is in reality a secondary factor. It is important because it is often used as a justification for Anti-American attitudes, that may be founded in other

issues.

Since the end of the Second World War, globalization has spread American culture around the world, with McDonalds in Moscow, Starbuck’s Coffee in Peking and Levi’s Jeans fetching premium prices

worldwide, American firms and products can be found in almost every developed nation. Not only that, but genuinely American words (and not just imports from England) have become even more

common. O.K. and Coca-Cola are the two most recognized words in the world. American films (even in spite of their bubblegum character) tend to be some of the most popular and most watched

films in the world. Increasingly, cultural conservatives are seeing this as an encroachment on their traditional culture, often times making use of the force of law as a tool to isolate their languages

from the influences of American English. This cultural conservatism has not only spread such seemingly futile efforts as the French Parliament’s attempt to ban the word micro-chip from their

language, but far more sinister efforts as well. Islamist terrorism is directly linked to a backlash against the spread of American culture and liberalism. This cultural conservatism is one of two

primary factors in causing Anti- American sentiments to flourish.

Finally, an intense aversion to centralized global power (just so long as it’s in a foreign land) is the other primary cause of Anti-American attitudes. Save for a handful of internationalist leftists,

most of whom oppose the US because it practices a liberal market based system; the vast majority of people have had a mistrust of foreign powers ingrained into their consciences. A remnant of

the Era of Imperialism and Great Power rivalries, this mistrust is founded in national rivalry, and is a long term cultural factor. That a foreign power should be so incredibly strong as the United

States is now, is entirely objectionable to their point of view. They would instead seek a system that is centered on their homeland. Even in the European Union, there is a clear power struggle for

dominance between The United Kingdom, French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, which is born of similar factors, and a desire to not be in a system dominated by another country,

but by their own country. This distrust of strong foreign powers is one of the primary causes of Anti-Americanism.

From these two primary factors we can also see how an increasing opposition to, not only the United States Government, but also towards the people of the United States is being constructed.

People who have been steeped in the traditions of liberalism are typically unwilling to demonize a population immediately, and will blame their hostility on the government, as a form of unconscious

balancing. Increasingly, a vision of out-group homogeneity takes hold, often characterizing Americans as universally brash, aggressive, overly religious prudes and rather undereducated. At the

same time, an image that Americans don’t care about the poor and downtrodden, are hostile to workers, and extremely greedy has taken hold as well. These sentiments cannot rise to such

near-universal proportions as they are now without a triggering event, though. The event that was required for this was the 2004 election, and the overwhelming support that George Bush

received. As the headline of The Daily Mirror in Britain read “How can 59,054,087 Americans be so dumb?” (Kohut, XIV)

To lay the blame on non-Americans for Anti-Americanism is of course absolutely incorrect. The American population does indeed deserve some, albeit, not universal blame. The attitude which

Alexis de Tocqueville described as “American Exceptionalism”, which has existed from the earliest days of the Republic, continues to grate on many non-Americans. In general, Americans are more

economically liberal, more religious and socially conservative than so many of their Western European counterparts. These differences have worn on the relations between the US and the

populaces of Western Europe. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 many non-Americans hoped that Americans would be more humble and act less invulnerable. Instead, the opposite

has happened, George Bush who came into office promising more humble foreign policies switched to the most aggressive policies since the Johnson Administration. This contrast between hopes

and reality has made non-Americans chafe because the people of the United States opted for the opposite.

Anti-Americanism is an extremely complex issue, whose roots are equally complex. Blame for this phenomenon is not be consolidated into a single party, and instead should be recognized as a wide

ranging diverse concept.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 many non-Americans hoped that Americans would be more humble and act less invulnerable.
Instead, the opposite has happened, George Bush who came into office promising more humble foreign policies switched to the most aggressive policies since the Johnson Administration.

I can't speak for the whole world, but in Britain, we were right behind America then. We went along with the military jaunts into Afghanistan and Iraq fully believing that it was right to act tough and smash these bastards.
Perhaps those actions were misguided, in hindsight, on the part of both countries. The propaganda against Bush and Blair went into overdrive, not least because we defied the UN because we could.
These days, America, and to a certain extent Britain, are vilified not only in the Muslem world, but also in the rest of western Europe as some sort of modern imperial crusaders who want to impose their world views on everyone else.

In Britain now, there has been an upsurge in anti-Americanism because a lot of people feel we followed you guys into a blind cul-de-sac and brought this hatred upon ourselves. The intelligence reports on Saddam having WMD's were obviously wrong, and a lot of people believe they was deliberately fabricated to justify either an oil-grab or an ideological crusade into the Islamic world. We are now completely shit-scared of the Muslems in our own country, imagining that they all have some kind of dynamite/uranium explosive strapped to their waist underneath their cloak things.

In my humble opinion, America needs to scratch it's allies backs too. It's best friend, Britain, now feels betrayed and misled into helping out at severe cost to itself, without any respect or thanks coming the other way. I don't personally feel this way, but a lot of Brits do. Build a new AMD factory here and we may get back onside, but the Muslems and the French are always going to hate us both because of stuff that happened a thousand years ago in Britain's case, and in the last few years in America's case.

Don't try to kid yourself that it is because of successful corporations like Starbucks or McDonalds. The foreign guys like those things.

Don't try to kid yourself that it is because of successful corporations like Starbucks or McDonalds. The foreign guys like those things.

This is just idle speculation, but perhaps the franchises are seen in other countries as extensions of american influence. Or maybe the people in other countries see them sort of as a representative of the government of america.

If you think about it the biggest part of america involved in foreign counties is not the military, it is corporate america. The most visible aspect of america in the foreign world are corporations.

If you think about it the biggest part of america involved in foreign counties is not the military, it is corporate america. The most visible aspect of america in the foreign world are corporations.

Yep, but it is all supply and demand. If they didn't want Big Macs or M16s, they wouldn't buy them.
Although I do admit that some proper America haters probably take offence to US products. But that is just jealousy.

I don't know about it being 'just jealousy', but otherwise I agree, Eviltef. On a more proofreader-y note:

Nice start, Anda. Just a few notes.
Anti-Americanism is fundamentally a deep seated phenomenon, borne of the development of a uni-polar global system. It is more than a reaction to American policies, but a deep seated unease of centralized global power, especially if it’s centered in a foreign power.

Try cutting "fundamentally". It throws the sentance structure a bit, especially with "fundamentally a deep-seated phenomenon". Also, "deep seated unease of centralized global power" is a bit... off, I can't say why exactly. I think that 'of' is misused-- probably "deep seated unease with centralized global power" would be better.

Also, try folding that last bit in a tad more, as it is it just sort of hangs.

Otherwise, only one thing really stood out to me. You call the Republic of France and the Republic of Germany by their French and German names-- nothing inherently wrong with that, but reading it, it sounds rather pretentious. I'd suggest just calling them "the French Republic and the Republic of Germany".

Otherwise, sounds like a nice paper.

So, I'm looking at this as a paper topic, and I've typed up a Thesis-sort of thing and an Abstract to work from. I'd love some criticism and advice, and any insights you might bring to the matter. Thankymuch.

Also, if you notice any outright typos, grammar mistakes or otherwise, please bring them to my attention. Grammar Nazism is strongly supported!

Thesis: Anti-Americanism is a deep seated phenomenon and is a result of the development of a uni-polar global system. It is not only a reaction to American policies, but a deep seated unease at global power centered in one nation.

Abstract: Since the collapse of the Soviet system and destruction of the autocratic? regimes of the Eastern-bloc, a fundamental mistrust of the United States -- the only surviving superpower -- has developed in a many countries. To ascribe the cause for this phenomenon to a single factor is anerror. Multiple causes are at play.

The most pronounced aspect of anti-Americanism is criticism of The United States' often brusque foreign policy, which is commonly perceived as America using its military to coerce other nations.




800 verbal SAT linguistics major grammatiknazi BLITZKRIEG

I'm a few sails to the wind, drinking wise, so I'll do the rest on the morrow.

My corrections -- and they all make the paper more readable -- are in bold. Use them and you'll get an A, like I always do. :)

800 verbal SAT linguistics major grammatiknazi BLITZKRIEG

I'm a few sails to the wind, drinking wise, so I'll do the rest on the morrow.

My corrections -- and they all make the paper more readable -- are in bold. Use them and you'll get an A, like I always do. :)

Countires, dude, Countires!

Countires, dude, Countires!

Orthography is not grammar, and I did not run it through Herr von Spellchecker

Also, I cannot type "commercials," it always comes out 'commericals' and then i delete back and change it. Maybe this is the same?

Orthography is not grammar, and I did not run it through Herr von Spellchecker

Also, I cannot type "commercials," it always comes out 'commericals' and then i delete back and change it. Maybe this is the same?

Hm, it might be. My keyboard was doing something similar about a week ago... Turned out that it was overheating, so unplugging it for a few hours solved the problem.

You start out ok with this little essay, but you drift into polemics fairly soon. To assume that McDonalds or Starbucks are one of the reasons the USA is viewed with disapproval by so many is directly contradictory to the fact that if these corporations wouldn't find millions of customers in almost every country every single day, they wouldn't operate on an international scale in the first place. It's fair to assume that they are accepted in many, if not most cultures.
The same goes for Holywood movies. Although there is arguably a lot more money to promote them than there is for non-American productions, it's still the publics choice to go and see them.

You are right assuming that the general reservations the world holds against the US are indeed of an economic nature, but they regard American import policies more than the export ones. The fact that the USA raised tremendous import taxes and tariffs, while using all its political power to force other countries to lower their own would be one such factor.
Another one would be the pressure put on the EU by the US government regarding GM food. EU regulations demand that GM food has to be labeled as such, and the US tried everything short of military actions so far to overturn that law, as it hinders their export of GM seeds to developing countries. They tend to be reluctant to buy those seeds as long as the EU will not buy the crops, as the end-consumers there shy away from GM products.

You are perfectly right in assuming that one reason of anti-US feelings is their hard-nosed, might-makes-right approach to international politics on the whole. Phrases like "if you're not with us you're against us" thrown in the face of allies who did everything in their power to help the US after September 11 and in their war in Afghanistan, for their refusal to buy into the dubious intelligence that led to the war on Iraq alienated large portions of society. It wasn't so much the rest of the Western world that declared its distance from the US, it was the US that declared it didn't want anything to do with most indepened Western countries any more.

To assume that people object to US hegemony simply because they would like to see their own country in its place is ridiculous at best. What people would like to see is a balance of powers, not one single power, no matter what that power would be. I for one would like to see neither Ireland nor Germany as single leading power on the planet, but I would want to see both countries as equals in the global game, providing stability and balance.

I'd disagree with your section on linguistic conservativism. The Académie Française was started in 1635, long before the United States existed, and English interference was minimal in the French language, if at all. Secondly, it does not necessairily lead to any kind of Anti-Americanism, for example, most people my age in the UK say hooker rather than prostitute and movie rather than film. Some even say gas than petrol and exchange rubbish for garbage or trash. In a generation or so, these will become a normal part of the British English language. Although there are those, and I must confess that I am among them, that would rather use 'our' words, it is not out of a desire not to be American, it's more of a desire to be British, and keep our own little ways, as all countries do. Including, I might add, the early United States. Bill Bryson's Made in America touches the subject of linguistic conservativism in the early US, and might be worth a read if you think it may be an important part of your thesis.

Hope it helps and good luck. I'm off for a hair cut.:eek:

Starbuck and companies like that are corporate fascist slavers. They are always the biggest, main and the only buyer of unprocessed materials for dirt price from thrid world countries and selling it to the rest of the world for incredible profits. By their goverment contacts they can arrange assasinations, coups and other dirty plays that will keep the 3rd world countries from having any oppurtunity to grow their economy.
google and search cofee seed prices throughout the years, as single buyer the price is dictated and every year gets lower. Making living conditions hell in those countries while there is no drop at the price of a cup of cofee from Starbucks...

My 'anti-Amerikanism', for want of a better expression, was born out of finding out what was done in Latin America. Mc Donalds had fuck all to do with it.

My 'anti-Amerikanism', for want of a better expression, was born out of finding out what was done in Latin America. Mc Donalds had fuck all to do with it.

Agreed.
If big corporations with outlets in multiple countries were the reason people resent the USA, Sweden would be loathed for IKEA, the UK for the Body Shop, etc., etc....

So, I'm looking at this as a paper topic, and I've typed up a Thesis-sort of thing and an Abstract to work from. I'd love some criticism and advice, and any insights you might bring to the matter. Thankymuch.

Also, if you notice any outright typos, grammar mistakes or otherwise, please bring them to my attention. Grammar Nazism is strongly supported!

Thesis: Anti-Americanism is fundamentally a deep seated phenomenon, borne of the development of a uni-polar global system. It is more than a reaction to American policies, but a deep seated unease of centralized global power, especially if it’s centered in a foreign power.

I think that's a very interesting thesis. I happen to feel great unease about centralized power of the sort you describe, particularly when it is held by people I either don't like or don't understand. That inclines me to believe that there is real substance to your theory.

You start out ok with this little essay, but you drift into polemics fairly soon. To assume that McDonalds or Starbucks are one of the reasons the USA is viewed with disapproval by so many is directly contradictory to the fact that if these corporations wouldn't find millions of customers in almost every country every single day, they wouldn't operate on an international scale in the first place. It's fair to assume that they are accepted in many, if not most cultures.
The same goes for Holywood movies. Although there is arguably a lot more money to promote them than there is for non-American productions, it's still the publics choice to go and see them.

You are right assuming that the general reservations the world holds against the US are indeed of an economic nature, but they regard American import policies more than the export ones. The fact that the USA raised tremendous import taxes and tariffs, while using all its political power to force other countries to lower their own would be one such factor.
Another one would be the pressure put on the EU by the US government regarding GM food. EU regulations demand that GM food has to be labeled as such, and the US tried everything short of military actions so far to overturn that law, as it hinders their export of GM seeds to developing countries. They tend to be reluctant to buy those seeds as long as the EU will not buy the crops, as the end-consumers there shy away from GM products.

You are perfectly right in assuming that one reason of anti-US feelings is their hard-nosed, might-makes-right approach to international politics on the whole. Phrases like "if you're not with us you're against us" thrown in the face of allies who did everything in their power to help the US after September 11 and in their war in Afghanistan, for their refusal to buy into the dubious intelligence that led to the war on Iraq alienated large portions of society. It wasn't so much the rest of the Western world that declared its distance from the US, it was the US that declared it didn't want anything to do with most indepened Western countries any more.
Thanky much, I will be exploring these facets as I develop my paper.

To assume that people object to US hegemony simply because they would like to see their own country in its place is ridiculous at best. What people would like to see is a balance of powers, not one single power, no matter what that power would be. I for one would like to see neither Ireland nor Germany as single leading power on the planet, but I would want to see both countries as equals in the global game, providing stability and balance.
Also, I shall look at it, but I'm certainly not saying it's a conscious action. If anything, it would seem to be a distrust of power that has rather low efficacy to oneself, and a desire to have power where it is reactive to oneself, i.e. in one's own home country.

I'd disagree with your section on linguistic conservativism. The Académie Française was started in 1635, long before the United States existed, and English interference was minimal in the French language, if at all. Secondly, it does not necessairily lead to any kind of Anti-Americanism, for example, most people my age in the UK say hooker rather than prostitute and movie rather than film. Some even say gas than petrol and exchange rubbish for garbage or trash. In a generation or so, these will become a normal part of the British English language. Although there are those, and I must confess that I am among them, that would rather use 'our' words, it is not out of a desire not to be American, it's more of a desire to be British, and keep our own little ways, as all countries do. Including, I might add, the early United States.
I think it's not a dislike of the US that spawns dislike of encroaching American words and culture, but instead it's the encroachment that many people find mildly irritating, kind of like an itch that won't go away.

Bill Bryson's Made in America touches the subject of linguistic conservativism in the early US, and might be worth a read if you think it may be an important part of your thesis.
Will be looking into that for certain, seems to definitely have relevance.

Hope it helps and good luck. I'm off for a hair cut.:eek:
Watch out for the scissors!

I don't know about it being 'just jealousy', but otherwise I agree, Eviltef. On a more proofreader-y note:
I ought to make sure that it's definitely not jealousy that I'm talking about, but it's something else, mistrust of some sort more than anything else.

Otherwise, only one thing really stood out to me. You call the Republic of France and the Republic of Germany by their French and German names-- nothing inherently wrong with that, but reading it, it sounds rather pretentious. I'd suggest just calling them "the French Republic and the Republic of Germany".

Should do that...after all, that's what Orwell advised against doing....

*makes changes*




Thankys you all.

Also, I shall look at it, but I'm certainly not saying it's a conscious action. If anything, it would seem to be a distrust of power that has rather low efficacy to oneself, and a desire to have power where it is reactive to oneself, i.e. in one's own home country.

In a way, you do have a point there. It did give me an uneasy feeling in the past to see my life so remendously influenced by a power I had no control over whatsoever. Whoever the USAmerican public decides to elect (or rather, whoever they decide to let grab power in any case) will have direct effect on millions of people worldwide who don't get a say in that.
I think one reaction to this would be to wish for more power for those you yourself can elect.
Another reaction however would be to wish for a more equal distribution of power, thereby limiting the influence of the one mega-power on the less powerful.

Urmm... I wouldn't say that the world is "jealous" of the US' power, the feeling, or at least mine, is more that people are pissed off because the US abuses its power.

I wouldn't mind it being as it's been termed a "super-duper power" were it to act responsbly, it's just when the US doesn't get involved were it should / does where it shouldn't that I get a bit miffed.



Oh and "anti-Americanism". Don't use that term, please. You don't have "anti-Francism", or "anti-European Unionism", I'd try and phrase it better, without trying to bring parallels to anti-Semitism.

Urmm... I wouldn't say that the world is "jealous" of the US' power, the feeling, or at least mine, is more that people are pissed off because the US abuses its power.

I wouldn't mind it being as it's been termed a "super-duper power" were it to act responsbly, it's just when the US doesn't get involved were it should / does where it shouldn't that I get a bit miffed.
Once again, I'm definitely not using the word jealous. A person can only be jealous by a conscious act, and what I'm working on describing is an unconscious mass phenomenon.

I believe the roots of the Anti-American sentiment are far deeper than just a simple opposition to the ill-guided policies of the current administration.


Oh and "anti-Americanism". Don't use that term, please. You don't have "anti-Francism", or "anti-European Unionism", I'd try and phrase it better, without trying to bring parallels to anti-Semitism.

That's something I'm definitely not trying to do, I have no desire to link Anti-Americanism to Anti-Semitism. And, if France were to find itself in the role of hegemon, I would expect to find Anti-Francism, but because France is not in that position, and thus the term doesn't exist. I'm working with the academic terminology currently available, and Anti-Americanism is the term that's most often applied.



Furthermore, this is more than just a case study of current Anti-Americanism, but of something of a theoretical framework. I want it to be universally applicable, no matter who the hegemon is, and no matter how they handle their foreign policy.

I think it's not a dislike of the US that spawns dislike of encroaching American words and culture, but instead it's the encroachment that many people find mildly irritating, kind of like an itch that won't go away.
Yeah, mildly irritating (if at all) to a minority of pedants and Anglo Grammar-Nazis like myself, but people don't dislike the USA because of an Americanisation of British English. That's what I'm trying to say. But yes, I agree with what you're saying.

Will be looking into that for certain, seems to definitely have relevance.
Aye, it's a good read, especially if you, like me, enjoy United States history. If you are interested in UK/US linguistic bickering, it's well worth a read.


Watch out for the scissors!
Done! 8 top, 6 back and sides. It's a shame short hair makes by glasses look huge, but when it's too long it goes everywhere.


Thankys you all.
My pleasure. When you finish, I'm sure there would be plenty of NSers who would be interested in a read, if that's possible ;).

My pleasure. When you finish, I'm sure there would be plenty of NSers who would be interested in a read, if that's possible ;).

Certainly, when I finish this (It's going to wind up being for my Foreign Policy Decision Making class) the whole 20 page monstrosity will find it's way onto NS General.

Certainly, when I finish this (It's going to wind up being for my Foreign Policy Decision Making class) the whole 20 page monstrosity will find it's way onto NS General.

w00t!

Grammar Nazism is strongly supported!
Now this is my kind of thread...

Thesis: Anti-Americanism is fundamentally a deep seated phenomenon, borne of the development of a uni-polar global system. It is more than a reaction to American policies, but a deep seated unease of centralized global power, especially if it’s centered in a foreign power.
Unipolar is not usually hyphenated.

Abstract: Since the end of the cold war, the collapse of the Soviet system and destruction of the Autarkic regimes of the East-bloc, a fundamental mistrust of the surviving superpower, the United
Isn't it usually Eastern Bloc?

States, has matured throughout large portions of the global population. To consign the cause for this phenomenon to a single factor is a fundamental error. Instead multiple causes must be

thoroughly evaluated. First to be considered is criticism of oftentimes excessively brusque American foreign policies, which are viewed as the United States using it’s immense military might to
The possessive 'its' has no apostrophe.

coerce other, weaker nations to bend to it’s will. This was the case during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and was primarily because of the increasingly destructive American war in Vietnam.
Same 'its' problem.

While opposition to such foreign policies is obviously a primary factor in the Anti-American case, it is in reality a secondary factor. It is important because it is often used as a justification for
I think you mean 'apparently'. 'Obviously' implies that the statement is true, whereas 'apparently' just means that it appears to be true.

Right, that's enough for the moment - I wouldn't want to irritate people too much...

Thesis: Anti-Americanism is fundamentally a deep seated phenomenon, borne of the development of a uni-polar global system. It is more than a reaction to American policies, but a deep seated unease of centralized global power, especially if it’s centered in a foreign power.

Abstract:

*) First to be considered is criticism of oftentimes excessively brusque American foreign policies, which are viewed as the United States using it’s immense military might to coerce other, weaker nations to bend to it’s will.

"America is a crude military bully."


*) ..globalization has spread American culture around the world,...

"America is a crude cultural bully."


*) Finally, an intense aversion to centralized global power (just so long as it’s in a foreign land) is the other primary cause of Anti-American attitudes.

"America is a bully who isn't us."


*) The attitude which Alexis de Tocqueville described as “American Exceptionalism”, which has existed from the earliest days of the Republic, continues to grate on many non-Americans.

"America thinks they are 'special'."


*) In general, Americans are more economically liberal, more religious and socially conservative than so many of their Western European counterparts.

"America is a society of staid preacher-slavish shopkeepers."


So,..

*) America is powerful, economically and militarily, which are intimately linked in the "military industrial complex".

*) America is a bully in the use of it's economic and military power, and uses these powers to force it's culture on others.

*) America is not "like us" because they "aren't us" and they think they're a special-case society.

..replacing "America" with "Country":

There exists anti-Countryism because any country who is disproportionately powerful and thinks itself "special enough" to make it's own decisions and act upon them based on what it thinks is "right", and actively promotes what it thinks is "right" to other countries, will ALWAYS be seen as a threat to those countries without (or lacking in) those qualities.

The natural consequence of this anti-Countryism is that those people and countries who exhibit anti-Countryism will do the following:

*) Diminish the economic and military power of Country.
*) Diminish the "specialness" of Country.
*) Diminish the "rightness" (moral/ethical values) behind the decisions of Country.
*) Diminish the "marketability" of Country's cultural values.

These tactics are to be expected, and cannot be "battled" by Country by merely crying "foul!".

The only way to "battle" anti-Countryism is by Country putting themselves in the position of LEAST POSSIBLE risk of being ineffective-in-action, while maintaining their maximum possible power, supportable "specialness", and "moral highground".

People ONLY minimize their anti-Countryism-ness when it is in their personal best interest to do so, thus, only by "paying off" the presently anti-Country population of the world with,

... Effective action to do what is demonstrably "right" that personally benefits the presently anti-Country which proves that Country is actually "special" in nature...

..will anti-Countryism be minimized.