> Oh, I dont think its impossible for a supranational entity backed by national militaries to act as a policeman rather than a mafia don.
One person's policeman is another's mafia don. The international system as it exists, exists how you're describing it (supranational entity backed by national militaries) - it's just that the absence of the premier and effective military (America) makes that infeasible. So railing against America, calling the country a gang and mafia don, and advocating for it to withdraw from international organizations that it basically maintains flies in the face of your stated ideas and goals.
> An EU led super power emerging after an American collapse might successfully step into that role.
I mean that's certainly a scenario of events that could happen, but recent events on the ground suggest the EU is far too weak and neutered to supplant the United States in a meaningful way. It's more likely that the EU would break down and give way to war and conflict than create a unified state - hence the reason for NATO and the EU being created to babysit Europeans who continue to start war after war. More likely is just that the collapse of America (whatever that means) would give rise to either new nation state actors, or China, or some yet unknown and interesting new nation state.
One of the things that I think is interesting that has come out of the recent conflict in Ukraine that was started by Russia is that it is breaking the illusion of rules-based order on the international level and people are apparently very surprised about this.
Unfortunately might does make right at this level of interaction. To the extent that "fair" international organizations can exist they only can exist in that they are enforced by might and power. Actual bombs, guns, tanks, money, resources, and taking the lives of others. All of these organizations: the UN, ICC, WTO, you name it only exist in a meaningful way because they're literally backed by the United States' willingness to bomb or take away someone's toys (Russian yachts), and that you'd advocate for distancing the US from these organizations is to lead to the collapse of them without clear, ready replacements. No country or group of countries has the apparent ability to do this. Even the EU cannot conjure up a single, unified military and impose its will on the world.
Much of this anti-Americanism is geared toward sowing division where there is none and trying to convince Americans to be isolationist so that these international organizations do break down and then other countries can murder and pillage with impunity. I think it's safe to say we can reject this, in favor of a rules-based international order that is imperfect, but can be backed by America and supported by the EU and other participants such as Japan, Australia, Singapore, and others.
For the most part I just view this stuff (being anti-America, destroy international organizations, etc.) as right-wing talking points supported by bad actors to break ties in democracies.
Wait, what? I'm American... South American, to be precise. The US as world police doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, given their track record in our part of the Americas.
Whether this world policing is a "US liberal" or a "US right-wing" thing is of no interest to me. Both camps will call anyone who disagrees anti-American, anyway. (I think right now it's more of a "US liberal" thing but it used to be "US center-right/neocon". US politics are confusing!).
> Wait, what? I'm American... South American, to be precise.
Just to be precise, being American means you're from the United States of America. I don't call myself North American, for example. Neither does anyone else. When you introduce yourself you don't say "Hi I'm the_af and I'm from America". That would be confusing, unless you're actually from the United States.
> The US as world police doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, given their track record in our part of the Americas.
Compared to what?
> Whether this world policing is a "US liberal" or a "US right-wing" thing is of no interest to me. Both camps will call anyone who disagrees anti-American, anyway. (I think right now it's more of a "US liberal" thing but it used to be "US center-right/neocon". US politics are confusing!).
The "let's get America out of international organizations" rhetoric are right-wing talking points propped up by countries that seek to divide democracies. Brexit is another good example. It's not that you're being called "anti-American" it's just that you're incorrect. The rhetorical talking points that discredit our international institutions and create anti-American sentiment seek to destroy those institutions (because they're maintained by the United States) to get the US to withdraw from those organizations to collapse them.
> Just to be precise, being American means you're from the United States of America. I don't call myself North American, for example. Neither does anyone else. When you introduce yourself you don't say "Hi I'm the_af and I'm from America".
No, this is false. I call myself American. We're from the Americas. (North)American exceptionalism is bullshit.
But my point is that disagreement over US policy and their role as world police, and disagreement with their Manifest Destiny, is not "being anti-American". Even the phrase "anti-American" reeks so much of exceptionalism it should be avoided at all costs.
I'm not anti-American. Being American is about cooperating with all of America, not being a bully who doesn't have to comply with the rules unless you're the one writing them.
"Sorry" how? Don't feel sorry for me, I'm happy to remain American and will also always be considered so by my fellow countrymen.
But the point is that using these words, "American" and "anti-American", to refer to how people across the world choose to bow down -- or refuse to -- to the way things are handled by the US, is absurd. If you don't look up to the US you're not anti-American.
Nobody is "anti-American" just because they don't think the US is (or even should be) the guiding light of freedom and morality in the world. Nobody is anti- or un- American because they think the US is not above the rules.
"You're either with us or against us" -- a ridiculous and jingoistic mindset.
Perhaps using "American" (also) for South Americans is popular usage in (certain regions of) South America. You can't just declare that it's wrong just because it's not popular usage in Western culture (which is heavily influenced by the USA).
Indeed, in Latin America we call ourselves "americanos". It's even mentioned in the English language version of Wikipedia for the "American (word)" entry, under "Cultural reception" or something like that. It states "Hispanic Americans" challenge the notion that "American" should be exclusively used for people from the US. It also states the RAE (linguistics body from Spain) also challenges the English language common usage as "abusive" and recommends against adopting this usage in Spanish.
But this is neither here nor there. I didn't intend to lead this in a linguistics direction, but rather towards this notion of Manifest Destiny and exceptionalism, that leads some people (like the ones who replied to me) to believe that rejecting the notion of the US as World Police is somehow the same as being "anti-American".
Since not everyone is from the US, I argue, this idea that we are "all in the same boat" and pushing against US supremacy and above-the-rules'ness is somehow "being anti-American" and "right-wing" is both ridiculous and parochial.
That's fine if Americanos means something different in Spanish. But in the English language it's most typical use is citizens of the USA. That's fine if you want to use the word differently, but don't complain when people don't know what you're talking about.
You are deliberately avoiding the central point, which wasn't about linguistics. In any case English language Wikipedia acknowledges this controversy.
> don't complain when people don't know what you're talking about
I'm not complaining and everyone here does know what I'm talking about.
Actually it was u/ericmay who was complaining about alleged "anti-American" sentiment. Because this is about the world stage and about international rules, the interpretation that America != US is particularly relevant in this case; the interpretation about "common usage" is less relevant since this has major implications for the rest of the world (i.e. that the US is not above the rules and is not the moral light of the free world or whatever).
One person's policeman is another's mafia don. The international system as it exists, exists how you're describing it (supranational entity backed by national militaries) - it's just that the absence of the premier and effective military (America) makes that infeasible. So railing against America, calling the country a gang and mafia don, and advocating for it to withdraw from international organizations that it basically maintains flies in the face of your stated ideas and goals.
> An EU led super power emerging after an American collapse might successfully step into that role.
I mean that's certainly a scenario of events that could happen, but recent events on the ground suggest the EU is far too weak and neutered to supplant the United States in a meaningful way. It's more likely that the EU would break down and give way to war and conflict than create a unified state - hence the reason for NATO and the EU being created to babysit Europeans who continue to start war after war. More likely is just that the collapse of America (whatever that means) would give rise to either new nation state actors, or China, or some yet unknown and interesting new nation state.
One of the things that I think is interesting that has come out of the recent conflict in Ukraine that was started by Russia is that it is breaking the illusion of rules-based order on the international level and people are apparently very surprised about this.
Unfortunately might does make right at this level of interaction. To the extent that "fair" international organizations can exist they only can exist in that they are enforced by might and power. Actual bombs, guns, tanks, money, resources, and taking the lives of others. All of these organizations: the UN, ICC, WTO, you name it only exist in a meaningful way because they're literally backed by the United States' willingness to bomb or take away someone's toys (Russian yachts), and that you'd advocate for distancing the US from these organizations is to lead to the collapse of them without clear, ready replacements. No country or group of countries has the apparent ability to do this. Even the EU cannot conjure up a single, unified military and impose its will on the world.
Much of this anti-Americanism is geared toward sowing division where there is none and trying to convince Americans to be isolationist so that these international organizations do break down and then other countries can murder and pillage with impunity. I think it's safe to say we can reject this, in favor of a rules-based international order that is imperfect, but can be backed by America and supported by the EU and other participants such as Japan, Australia, Singapore, and others.
For the most part I just view this stuff (being anti-America, destroy international organizations, etc.) as right-wing talking points supported by bad actors to break ties in democracies.