Iranian Crackdown

Today was supposed to be the day when Iranian students held a massive demonstration in honor of the fourth anniversary of the first big student-police clash over democracy. Instead, the government prohibited every planned public gathering, consistent with a broader crackdown that has seen 4,000 arrests in recent weeks. Protest organizers complied with the orders, while denouncing the regime. This is how they were rewarded:

Minutes after the press conference ended, three activists were pushed to the ground and then taken away in a car by plainclothes men, witnesses said. The detained were named by the OCU as Ameri-Nassab, Ali Moghtaderi and Arash Hashemi.

Jeff Jarvis' site is a good place to start for links.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Consider the source, Eric. It's Matt Welch's "after the fact." And Matt, by his own admission, is "not aware of much."

[fyodor]

oracle,

That's what I thought about China until Tianammen (sp?) Square. I hope you're right, but if a regime is willing to be as ruthless and brutal as it takes, I don't see people risking their lives in sufficient numbers to topple it. I was afraid this would happen too, it was just too telegraphed. Spontaneous protests when the government's not expecting them probably work better.

[fyodor]

Eric Deamer,

You obviously have your own answer in mind. Why not state it rather than hiding behind a rhetorical device?

[oracle]

Fyodor, and that's also what we thought about Latvia, Lithuania, California, Poland, the Czech Republic, et al.

Please have courage.

[Eric Deamer]

fyodor,

If by "rhetorical device" you mean "rhetorical question" it really wasn't one.

I have definite ideas as to why mainstream media avoided the story. Its what Glenn Reynolds called the "Eason Jordan effect," and I also think that mainstream journalists have always had an affinity for totalitarian governments as long as the goverments were enemies of the US, dating back to Walter Duranty and un up through Peter Arnett today.

As for libertarian media, I'm generally curious. I really don't have an explanation.

[JJ]

"I also think that mainstream journalists have always had an affinity for totalitarian governments as long as the goverments were enemies of the US"

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

[Tim Stich]

Eric Deamer,

You obviously have your own answer in mind. Why not state it rather than hiding behind a rhetorical device?

Posted by fyodor at July 9, 2003 01:35 PM

No please. No hiding behind devices and such. BTW, fyodor, the bank refuses to cash your check without your driver's license. Is your first name really Fuckyeast? Odor is the last name. I got that.

[fyodor]

JJ/Eric Deamer,

I'm likely not the only one here who thinks there's an attraction for the Left (and therefore by extension to some degree the mainstream media) of anti-Americanism. Still I think Eric Deamer's analysis runs the risk of falling into the pit of reductionism.

Anyway, I apologize to Eric if you really weren't trying to accuse Reason of the same. It seemed like it! I imagine libertarian zines just feel the issue ain't up their alley, ie others cover better and/or it doesn't fit into the types of issues they aim to cover. Not every zine/pundit has to cover every single issue, and it doesn't mean that they're intentionally slighting a news issue to not cover it....

[Eric Deamer]

The post I was referring to is up on this new blog I have as a restul of getting to be a Type Pad beta tester by the way. Its what my name links to now.

fyodor,

You're right, the argument as I made it just now was somewhat reductive, but it was just a post on a comment box. With more space I could tease it out more and come up with a lot more examples than the two I gave.

I certainly did not mean to tar Reason with the brush as conventional "mainstream" (meaning center to far left) media. I recognize that not everyone can or should cover everything. But if it was a case of feeling other publications could do it better, I still have a couple of questions. One, why publish the piece I referred to earlier. Does anyone else remember it? That autobiographical thing about growing up under the Shah? Nothing about Iran and then that piece, so atypical of articles published here, and published a few days before July 9th. And then, why this blog post now?

Does the staff here have a position on Iran or are they agnostic about it?

[Croesus]

oracle,

The only reason why Poland, etc. broke the tyrannical yoke they were under was due to the inability of the USSR to keep them under it. If the USSR had remained strong in the 1980s, and I think it could have if a non-reformist had taken power, Poland would have gone nowhere. Seeing the growth of freedom as inevitable, etc. is deterministic non-sense.

[Croesus]

Actually, the left loves the US when its leaders, or people they see who are friendly to their cause, are in power. The right can be as anti-American (whatever the hell that means) when it is out of power as the left can be.

[Croesus]

Eric Dreamer,

The reason why there is little coverage of Iran in the US media is because the US media covers foreign affairs very thinly in general. Americans as a rule don't give a rat's ass about what goes on beyond their shores, and that is reflected in the resources devoted to foreign news. The only time they do give a fuck is when there is some external threat; when that has subsided, they care very little.

[jacob dreyer]

Croesus: your rght, the Prague Spring comes to mind.

[Anonymous]

" The right can be as anti-American (whatever the hell that means) when it is out of power as the left can be."

what anti-americanism means: http://www.thepublicinterest.com/current/article1.html

please cite an example of when the right exihibited anti-americanism.

[Anonymous]

" If the USSR had remained strong in the 1980s, and I think it could have if a non-reformist had taken power, Poland would have gone nowhere."

The USSR was doomed. It was only a matter of time.

[jacob dreyer]

"please cite an example of when the right exihibited anti-americanism"

never heard of pat buchanan, etc?

[Eric Deamer]

Croesus,

The link sent by anon above was a really good, detailed description of anti-Americanism, and its roots.

Foreign coverage by most American media is indeed thin, which is why its interesting to note what actually is covered and what isn't, and what slant is put on that.

[Anonymous]

pitchfork pat, as dumb as his policies are, really does think he is acting in the best interest of america. he thinks he is just being a good american.

anti-americanism in contrast is a vile irrational meme with european roots (see the link above), very similar to anti-semitism. it isn't native to the US, but has (recently?) infected much of the american left.

[Citizen]

People like Coresus always say that American's dont care about foreign news as if other countries are any different. Right, like Peruvians are glued to the wire waiting to hear about the Davis recall. Euros are only interested in the foreign news that effects them, just like us, just like everyone else.

[Ikram Saeed]

I liked that Reason article on the Shah. Kinda fun to read. Not too political. I actually bought a paper copy of the magazine because of it.

I took the publication of the article to mean that Reason had the same point of view as hoder.com, eyranian.net, and a lot of other Iranian weblogs -- pro-democracy and anti-monarchist.

Given that a lot of conservative media are soft on monarchism (e.g Micheal Ledeen and NRO), Reason's staked out its own turf which is, typically, more freedom oriented.

At the same time, the lack of detailed attention to the Iranian issues is normal for a magazine not focussed on imperial adventures (again, in contrast to the NRO, or the Weekly Standrad, or The New Republic).

[fyodor]

I have a friend who theorizes that the press gets excited about foreign news when the players can act as proxies for domestic disputes and politics. Maybe the Iranian protests are ignored in this country because we all agree who the good guys and bad guys are!

[Croesus]

Anon @ 3:35,

Well, whether it was doomed or not doesn't really undermine my point, does it? And to be frank, every nation is doomed, even the US, so the fact that the USSR was doomed is hardly revelatory.

Anon @ 3:34,

I read the article, and it really never defines anti-Americanism; which is why you likely pasted the URL, instead of trying to explain the author's ideas. What it does do is try to link the ideas of a few philosophers and writers to the whole of Europe, while trying to pawn of the US as the lily white rose of the world, all of which is reductionist hogwash. To be frank, I could find American writers throughout US who had similarly critical ideas about Europe which bore very little relation to the truth as well. This article is more of a case of Euro-bashing than it is an analysis of "anti-Americanism," which is still yet to be defined. In my mind, anti-Americanism is whatever someone wants it to be, but it tends to boil down to any criticism of the current government in power.

However, I did especially love the bit about "degeneracy." What's funny about that is that as many European philosophers thought that degeneracy was a good thing as a bad thing (Rousseau was quite fond of the idea); and most thought it didn't occur at all. There was in Europe in the 18th century a cult of America which viewed Americans as more natural, pure, etc., which Benjamin Franklin was able to use to his advantage in wooing the French into war against the British.

[Croesus]

Citizen,

Actually, I never stated explicitly or impliedly that other people in other nations give a shit about things foreign; they have a similar attitude as Americans do. However, since the debate concerned the American news media, I didn't think I was required to make statements about other nations. But if you want to be a pedantic prat, so be it.

[Croesus]

Eric Dreamer,

Actually, it was a bunch of hogwash.

[jacob dreyer]

^america in th 18th century was to europe of that time what israel of the 20th is to america at this time.
"And to be frank, every nation is doomed, even the US, so the fact that the USSR was doomed is hardly revelatory."
i hardly can agree, given that english law today is based on the magna charta and its various evolutions dating it back nearly 1000 years
and they've had their national sovereignty threatened, they'v imperialised, they've done it all man

[Croesus]

Anon Prat @ 3:50,

"anti-americanism in contrast is a vile irrational meme with european roots (see the link above), very similar to anti-semitism. it isn't native to the US, but has (recently?) infected much of the american left."

Well, first, its already been established that the article is hogwash; second, any prejudice based on national chauvinism, as the anti-European attitude you spew is, is irrational.

[Croesus]

jacob dreyer,

We live in the 21st century; hope you got the update.

As to Europe's attitude toward America in the 18th century, for the most part it was rather positive, at least in philosophical circles. Now, many Englishmen had no use for it, except as a place to exploit, and they tended to view Americans as country bumpkins as well.

[Croesus]

jacob dreyer,

BTW, a thousand years is a drop in the bucket geologically speaking; at some time in the future, every nation that exists today will no longer exist. As Romans like Livy and Tacitus could not fathom a world without Rome, Britons cannot imagine a world without Britain, yet it will be.

[Anonymous]

how about this: anti-americanism is irrational hatred of all things percieved to be american, just as anti-semetism is irrational hatred of all things perceived to be jewish.

and you are fool to think this doesn't exist.

as per the article; it expresses quite clearly that euro-bashing is equally repellent. and it doesn't say anything regarding the authors perception of america ("lily white" puh-leese), nor does it say anything about the "whole of europe" being anti-american. it merly identifies it as long standing trend among SOME europeans (and other influenced by european philsophy). and the philosophers cited happen to be very influential.

you probably only scanned the article then made your post.

standard crow post - "some americans are anti-european so anti-americanism doesn't exit. there was a cult of american so anti-americanism doesn't exist."

misdirection and bullshitting seems to be your MO.

well, we are not buying it.

[Anonymous]

actually your posts are a bunch of hogwash. making shit up instead of actually reading the article does not make an argument.

[Jesse Walker]

Eric: The Shah piece was published in our paper edition a month before it went on the site, and was accepted for publication some time before then. The timing with the Iranian protests was a coincidence.

As for why we haven't covered current Iranian dissent more: I've written about it a time or two, as have other members of the staff. If we haven't said as much about this latest explosion, it's presumably because we're busy with other projects and can't keep track of everything at once. Clearly we need one of those TIA dealies.

[Eric Deamer]

Croesus,

You are not a nice man, (at least in this forum) though you appear to be a speed reader, given the amount of time it took you to digest and refute that very long article. (Odd that the one detail you quote occurs very near the beginning)

I'm not sure what exactly causes you to be so angry and sarcastic (as per your comment to citizen) but I wish you luck with it, so that maybe one day you'll be able to have a civil conversation with someone.

As for Ikram,

Reporting on, and maybe even kinda sorta supporting a non-violent democracy movement in another country has nothing to do with "imperial adventures," but I imagine that's probably a sticking point we won't be able to get past. You're still clinging to this Ledeen is a Monarchist thing, which has pretty much thoroughly been disproven, IMO.

Have a nice day everyone.

Peace,
Eric

[Anonymous]

and I don't spew anti-european attidudes my dear crow. anti-europeanism is as stupid, bigoted and irrational as anti-americanism. and so is the eurofetishism you squawk btw.

[Croesus]

Anon Prat @ 4:22,

Actually, I never wrote that anti-Americanism didn't exist; I did write that he didn't define it. If you can't see the difference between the two, I can't help you, and you are too dimwitted for me to converse with.

"as per the article; it expresses quite clearly that euro-bashing is equally repellent."

Sure it does, but it irrationally attacks Europe all the same.

[Anonymous]

squawking crow:

FROM THE ARTICLE:

"Anti-Americanism rests on the singular idea that something associated with the United States, something at the core of American life, is deeply wrong and threatening to the rest of the world. "

FROM THE ARTICLE:

"A genuine dialogue between America and Europe will become possible only when Europeans start the long and arduous process of freeing themselves from the grip of anti-Americanism - a process, fortunately, that several courageous European intellectuals have already launched. But it is also important for Americans not to fall into the error of using anti-Americanism as an excuse to ignore all criticisms made of their country."

[Croesus]

Anon @ 4:26,

Hmm, not only do you spew it, you also lie about not spewing it.

Eric Dreamer,

If not suffering fools is bad character trait, then I admit that I am guilty of it. As to a longer critique, all I can say is that it was not needed.

[Croesus]

"A genuine dialogue between America and Europe will become possible only when Europeans start the long and arduous process of freeing themselves from the grip of anti-Americanism - a process, fortunately, that several courageous European intellectuals have already launched."

The implication of this that somehow Europeans are as a whole in the grip of anti-Americanism; as if all Europeans are irrational regarding this issue. First, this point is not even remotely proven, it is a mere pre-supposition at best; second, such statements can only come from reductionist fantasy-land; and third it is the height of anti-European insults. As I wrote, the author states that anti-Europeanism for its own sake is wrong, but he commits himself to that cause in the very same breath.

[Anonymous]

crow: so saying that I don't believe anti-europeanism is rational nor correct makes me anti-european?? you are really looking dumb.

just admit you didn't bother to read it.

[Anonymous]

crow: no it doesn't say that at ALL. it says that anti-americanism does exist among some europeans and it would be better for other europeans to work against that idea.

name a single anti-european insult

what a joke to say that this isn't proven, yet not make a single counter-argument to a lenghly essay. you only make yourself look more dumb.

[Eric Deamer]

Croesus,

The link was first posted at 3:34. You were railing against its stupidity by 4:09. Again, its a very long piece. No matter what sort of intellectual superhuman you claim to be. I find it pretty hard to believe that you could read, absorb, and attack the essay with any depth in a mere 35 minutes. You claim that the piece never defined Anti-americanism, when the entire piece itself, was an exhaustive and rigorous definition of Anti-americanism, including many different strains of anti-American thought, of which the "degeneracy" theory you allude to was but one. The piece goes on to state that some writers of the time conversely thought that the New World was a barren place where nothing could go or prosper. Interesting, huh?

As for your character traits, if "fools" are those who disagree with you or point out flaws in your logic, then you most certainly do not suffer them well I must agree.

Jesse,

Thanks so much for the response and links. I liked them quite a bit. I hoped (and suspected) it was something benign like what you described.

[Croesus]

"But of late, European leaders have been tempted to use anti-Americanism as an easy way to court favor with parts of the public, especially with intellectual and media elites."

Given Donald Rumsfeld's statement about "Old Europe," which right now the US appears to want the help of in Iraq, if their statements concern NATO involvement are truthful, one wonders about the author's ability to be fair.

"Heidegger's political views are commonly deplored today because of his early and open support of Nazism, and many suppose that his influence on subsequent political thought in Europe has been meager."

Foucault, who was heavily influence by Heidegger, was an ardent admirer of the US - in fact he appears to have enjoyed San Francisco too much.

"Heidegger in 1935 echoed the prevalent view of Europe being in a "middle" position..."

More reductionist non-sense; to be frank, America was not a major concern of Europeans in the 1930s, the depression was, as well as the fear of German militarism for countries like France. Extrapolating from one or two philosophers to Europe as a whole is about the biggest bunch of non-sense I've read in quite sometime.

[jacob dreyer]

"Well, first, its already been established that the article is hogwash; second, any prejudice based on national chauvinism, as the anti-European attitude you spew is, is irrational."

it hasn't really been established. not to me at any rate. you said, "this is crap" and then said "its now been established, the article is crap." that hasn't quite been established to myself or mr. deamer, and anon, so, maybe you ought to state more firmly as to why you feel that to eb the case, especially given that many of your reamrks, (such as it is packed with irrational anti-europeanism) simply don't ring true, as the author specifically bemoans the trend that he sees of anti-europeanism in sme conservatives. he makes a point of saying always "some europeans" or "certain branches of europeans" and the only time he gets unequivocaly or close to saying all europeans is when he quotes a european who says that.

i realsie we live in the twentieth century. i think, as regards to categorising and calissifying american attitudes towards israel in the 21st century, that its dfar too early to tell. furthermore, i think that it is fair to say that the overall image of israel hasn't chanegd substantially in the 21st as of yet, so your little exercise in the "if you want to be a pedantic prat, so be it. " category.

you say that the oman nation is dead. certainly that would appear to be the case. however, one may ask if roman law has had much influence on current italian law. if so, the standards by which you admit england as a contiguous state from 1280-present are bogus, considering the glorious revolution.

i disagree with your thesis that all there is to a nation is teh state that rules it. not neccesarily- for insatnce, FDR was hardly of a piece with our founders, are we then to consider that FDR"s presidency marked an end to the concept of america? of course not. in the smae way, i'd argue that some stuff- and thats the stuff that really mastters- DOES last.Tacitus, Vergil and Livy are varied in their career chocies, and their actions, yet it may fairly be said that they represent some of the best rome ahd to offer. if you feel as i do that the constitution is among our best achievements, then, if vergil is still accessible then there is no reason to think that that which is the basis of american as we know it, willnot continue to exist for millenia.

[Anonymous]

>>Given Donald Rumsfeld's statement about "Old Europe," which right now the US appears to want the help of in Iraq, if their statements concern NATO involvement are truthful, one wonders about the author's ability to be fair.

fair or not, that is a fair assesment of some european leaders

>>Foucault, who was heavily influence by Heidegger, was an ardent admirer of the US - in fact he appears to have enjoyed San Francisco too much.

there are more than one followers of Heidegger

>>More reductionist non-sense; to be frank, America was not a major concern of Europeans in the 1930s, the depression was, as well as the fear of German militarism for countries like France.

how is this reductionist? do you deny that european thinkers in the 1930s did not see themselves as the "middle way" between US capitalism and soviet communsim? and the author didn't say it was a major or only concern, merly that it did exist during the cited time period.

>>Extrapolating from one or two philosophers to Europe as a whole is about the biggest bunch of non-sense I've read in quite sometime

why not? those cited were very influential. or do you deny that?

btw- saying "reductionist" over and over does not fool anyone here.

[Croesus]

"name a single anti-european insult"

"Old Europe" - Donald Rumsfeld

[Anonymous]

Donald Rumsfield wrote the article?

[Anonymous]

old means bad

[Anonymous]

"old means bad"

more reductionist hogwash

😉

[Croesus]

"fair or not, that is a fair assesment of some european leaders"

How is it a "fair assessment," and which leaders do you write of?

"do you deny that european thinkers in the 1930s did not see themselves as the 'middle way' between US capitalism and soviet communsim?"

Yes. Partly because American capitalism in the 1930s looked a lot like European capitalism in the 1930s.

"why not? those cited were very influential. or do you deny that?"

Heidegger wasn't influential until the post-war period actually, so his comment about his thought reflecting European attitudes in the 1930s falls right there, if you think that he means he was influencing Europe at the time. He would have done better to qoute from other continental philosophers like Husserl.

As to Nietschze, its a bit odd that he is qouted, given how little the man wrote about US, or even thought about the US.

"btw- saying 'reductionist' over and over does not fool anyone here."

Well, if it is reductionist, it is reductionist - if you would like me to apply a word that is synonomous, I would gladly do so.

[Croesus]

You asked for an insult, and I gave it to you. Don't get pissed because you were tripped up by your own question.

[Croesus]

jacob dreyer,

Rome is dead; the Roman state ended (depending on how you view the Byzantine Empire) in 476 AD or 1453 AD. Sure their influence continues, just look at how the Justinian Code influences European law today, but the "nation" (and yes, this word is being used anachronistically) is dead; just as the Assyrian empire is dead, and countless other "nations."

[Anonymous]

crow:

>>You asked for an insult, and I gave it to you.

I meant in the article. that was the context of what we were discussion.

Still waiting...

btw I fail to see how "Old Europe" is so insulting. Age is virtue in some places

[Croesus]

Eric Dreamer,

"The link was first posted at 3:34. You were railing against its stupidity by 4:09. Again, its a very long piece."

Its not really very long actually; not for me at least.

"You claim that the piece never defined Anti-americanism, when the entire piece itself, was an exhaustive and rigorous definition of Anti-americanism, including many different strains of anti-American thought, of which the "degeneracy" theory you allude to was but one."

Actually, he tries to create various prongs of anti-Americanism, but each of these fail due to a mix of ahistoricism and reductionism. And no, he never really defines anti-Americanism - the best he does is this:

"Anti-Americanism rests on the singular idea that something associated with the United States, something at the core of American life, is deeply wrong and threatening to the rest of the world."

However, how this differs from all the other variety of prejudices that humans have created I can't say, but it appears that anti-Americanism, given this statement, doesn't differ as much as he claims from other forms of of prejudice. What he wants to do is make anti-Americanism special in some way, when in fact it really doesn't differ from racism, sexism, etc.

"Americanization today, for example, is almost the perfect synonym for the general concept of 'globalization,' differing only in having a slightly more sinister face."

What's funny is that to those Europeans who dislike "globalisation," many see European integration as the perfect synonym for "globalisation," not the US, and certainly not the US exclusively (which is why EU summits concerning the subject cause such riots).

"The piece goes on to state that some writers of the time conversely thought that the New World was a barren place where nothing could go or prosper."

Actually, it named three writers; and to be frank, they were the not the majority opinion of European philosophes at the time. Also, his criticism of the Abbe Raynal is unfair, who was decidedly not in the De Pauw camp (nor was he the uncritical lover of America that was Adam Smith and Edmund Burke).

Raynal early on in his monumental study, _A Philosophical and Political History of the Settlements and Trade of the Europeans in the East and West Indies (1798),_:

No event has been so interesting to mankind in general and to the inhabitants of Europe in particular, as the discovery of the New World and the passage to India by the Cape of Good Hope. It gave rise to a revolution in the commerce, and in the power of nations; as well as in the manners industry, and government of the whole world.
Everything was changed, and must change again.

But It is a question, whether the revolutions that are past, or those which must hereinafter take place, have been, or can be, of any utility to the human race. Will they ever add to the tranquility the happiness, and the pleasures of mankind? Can they improve our present state, or do they only change it?

[fyodor]

anon @ 5:31 PM,

Are you referring to Rumsfeld's use of the term? If he wasn't being derogatory, what else did he mean by it?

[Croesus]

"I meant in the article. that was the context of what we were discussion.

Still waiting..."

Well, given how the question was untethered the way it was, I simply assumed you wanted an insult from any place.

"A genuine dialogue between America and Europe will become possible only when Europeans start the long and arduous process of freeing themselves from the grip of anti-Americanism - a process, fortunately, that several courageous European intellectuals have already launched."

I find that rather insulting; as if any split that there is between the US and Europe is all Europe's fault.

There are very legitimate reasons to be wary of American power, least of all the multiple instances in world history in which a hegemon, even if it thought it was being kind or otherwise beneficial, used its power for ill. And of course there are all the very real uses of power where the US did far more harm than good. If anti-Americanism is a meme which goes to far, that can be accepted, but it certainly is based on legitimate concerns, despite what the author argues.

[Croesus]

fyodor,

Well, the entire point of the statement was to paint France, Germany, etc. as old and used up. Funny that countries in "new Europe," which are currently sending troops to Iraq, are requiring the resources of "old Europe" to do so. Its equally humorous that "new Europe" is running into the arms of "old Europe" as fast as it can. And I guess the last ironic bit is that "old Europe" as includes the United Kingdom.

[oracle]

Croesus,

"Seeing the growth of freedom as inevitable is deterministic non-sense."

True.

"But Freedom itself happens to be a human tropism."
Hence, take heart. It will surely happen.

[Joan]

"A genuine dialogue between America and Europe will become possible only when Europeans start the long and arduous process of freeing themselves from the grip of anti-Americanism -- a process (fortunately) that several courageous European intellectuals have already launched."

For example, 21-year-old Sabine Herold:
http://www.beloved-freedom.com/

[Anonymous]

Talk about reductia-ad-absurdum! This thread began with an "Iranian Crackdown" and ended up a "European Crackdown". (Interesting.)

[oracle]

Freedom will not be silenced. It may take some doing, but in the end, the chains will be broken.

Take heart, my friend.

[Eric Deamer]

I'm currently writing something to post on my blog here:

http://youngcurmudgeon.typepad.com/blog/

about how libertarian blogs and publications have had virtually no coverage of the Iranian protests, yet Reason a few days ago published a weird, atypical piece, which tangentially concerned how bad life was in Iran under the Shah.

Now, in the middle of it, something is posted, after the protest plans have been crushed.

Any comments? Why the lack of coverage until after the fact?

[Croesus]

"ALL Europes fault???? Are this fucking stupid? It said nothing of the kind. All it says is that some Europeans hold anti-american attitudes and that this is bad for US-Europe relations."

That is the direct implication of the portion of the article I have qouted over and over again.

[Croesus]

"He defines what he thinks it is, gives a backgroud on its existance and explains why it is a problem. This is apparently a problem for eurosluts like yourself, which leads you to lie and employ clever misdirection instead of making actual arguments."

I have specifically challenged his definitions (their historical accuracy for example), the overall importance of anti-Americanism, as well as his attempt to paint anti-Americanism as some special form of prejudice. In fact, to be blunt, I am the only one here who has actually shown any expertise in the subjects which he has delved into, or provided any evidence regarding my ideas. What you have done specifically is naysay and used insult as your primary weapon of argument.

[Croesus]

"along with anti-immigrationism racist politics, anti-american politics have been the trump card of european demagogues for soem time (check out Le Pen.) and increasingly that of mainstream european politicians: joschka fischer for instance, or even schroeder or chirac."

France has been open to immigrants, as has the UK, Germany, and the like (which is why there are millions of Turks, Algerians, etc. in Western Europe); that there are sensible checks on immigration doesn't imply that they are racist, any more than the checks on immigration in the US.

Oddly enough, le Pen, despite any anti-American ranting he may have done (which was not the focus of his campaign anyway), actually lost the 2002 election (I wonder how that happened, given how anti-American the French are supposed to be). Comparing le Pen's performance in French elections as a sign of French racism is a bit like saying that Pat Buchanan or David Duke represent America. This is getting to the level of hyperbole, BTW.

[Anonymous]

" illustrates what at base can only be described as a reactionary anti-European attitude which is wholly unwilling to accept that the basis for being wary of the US has something more to it than outright prejudice. "

Untrue, as he lists several examples of outright prejedice and the author goes out of his way to illustrate that these alone are what he defines as anti-americanism and not simple disagreement with US policies.

Nice little magic trick to try to turn this around ("reactionary anti-European attitude"). You will fail.

[Croesus]

If America (the idea, concept, etc. of it) means pluralism, religious tolerance, etc., then what Pat Robertson said was anti-American. The author himself states that anti-semetism is one form of anti-Americanism, which would imply that other forms of religious intolerance and prejudice are anti-American. In fact, it would imply that the entire edifice of power in the pre-Civil Rights South was anti-American. However, the problem with using the term anti-American to mean all these things is that it muddies the waters; what anti-Americanism is in this context is really anti-modernity, and there is plenty of that going around in the US as well as Europe.

[Anonymous]

"I have specifically challenged his definitions (their historical accuracy for example)"

Which I have countered.

"the overall importance of anti-Americanism"

which you brought in later after I called you out for your rather stupid "reductionist hogwash" claim.

" as well as his attempt to paint anti-Americanism as some special form of prejudice"

given his context was anti-americanism and Euro-American relations (and not racism or sexism), I fail to see how illustrating his topic is unfair.

" In fact, to be blunt, I am the only one here who has actually shown any expertise in the subjects which he has delved into"

AGRUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

"or provided any evidence regarding my ideas"

which I have countered.

" What you have done specifically is naysay and used insult as your primary weapon of argument."

Just admit you lost and the article is not reductionist hogwash.

[jacob dreyer]

"France has been open to immigrants, as has the UK, Germany, and the like (which is why there are millions of Turks, Algerians, etc. in Western Europe); that there are sensible checks on immigration doesn't imply that they are racist, any more than the checks on immigration in the US. "

you're right. however i hope you realsie that vast anti-immigrant parties have sprung up- jorg haiders freedom party, le pen's in france, berlusconi's popularity is partially due to his anti-immigrant stance, so on and so forth. norway recently passed a law banning all immigrants who were "non-Germanic" in ethnic origin.

"Comparing le Pen's performance in French elections as a sign of French racism is a bit like saying that Pat Buchanan or David Duke represent America."

not really because david duke is not beating the democratic party candidate, and its simply untrue to satet that pat buchanan could have any hope at getting 17% of the vote if he ran for president.

[columbus]

OK. About this Big Transatlantic Feud...

When there's cooking going on in the kitchen, the kitchen usually gets very hot. But, in this case, that doesn't mean the roast won't get burned. (There's smoke everywhere.)

And at the end of the day, dinner might just be one big flop.

(Hi, Mom!)

[Croesus]

Countered in what way? All you've done is say, to paraphrase you, "the author is right, and you are wrong."

[Croesus]

Jacob,

"not really because david duke is not beating the democratic party candidate, and its simply untrue to satet that pat buchanan could have any hope at getting 17% of the vote if he ran for president."

Didn't Duke nearly win a Senate race, as well as a race for Governor, in Louisiana? Hasn't Pat Buchanan won, and did very well in Republican primaries in the past - specifically 1992 and 1988? Didn't the recent (2002) gubenatorial election in Georgia hinge on support of the Confederate flag for goodness sake? Didn't a US Senator from Mississippi recently praise Strom Thurmond in a rather embarressing way? And doesn't that Senator receive oodles of support from organizations that are a kin to the White Citizens' Councils of the 1950s? Has there not been a crack down in the US concerning immigrants from the middle east?

[Anonymous]

"Well, if it wasn't major, then why even mention it?"

He was exploring its roots.

" In fact, the direct implication of the author is that Europe has been seething with anti-Americanism for over two-hundred years. "

He makes a good case that it has. But i also believe pro-americanism has also co-existed. But that doens't mean anti-americanism isn't a problem.

"BTW, calling me names hardly adds any credibility to your argument"

i am trying to shock you, to shake you from your illogical case.

" As to mentioning France, I happen to know its interwar period well, so I use it as an example."

Then note it is an example (e.g.)

" I am not a historian of Denmark in other words, but I can poke holes in the historical accuracy of the author's argument at least regarding France."

But france is not a counter-arguemnt for most of Europe. You should have made your case just for france.

"As to the 2nd International seeing itself as a "middle way" between capitalism and communism, I would argue that they didn't view themselves this way at all"

The 2nd international had the same goal as the 1-4 - utopian communism. For them this has historical truth, even for the liberal capitalist democracies. But they saw themselves as the "middle way" of using democratic process in between the inevitable decay of liberal capitalism and revolutionary communism (e.g. the Bolsheviks).

" Trying to slap some third-way label on them is fairly ahistorical and not the way they viewed themselves or their movement."

See above. That is why they were labeled "middle way" not "third way."

"The basic rule to him is that Europeans are anti-American, unless proven otherwise (that is the so-called heroes he speaks of)"

Now THAT is REDUCTIONISM. And hogwash as well.

[candide]

I guess your right, Croesus. We're all doomed to oblivion. Who needs Hegelian optimism when you have Nietzsche's nihilism, right?

[jacob dreyer]

is not louisiana a reactionary area, more so than most? are not republican primaries not quite the same as real national elections? are there not certain nationalist sentiments unattached to racism that could be attached to confederate flags? was not trent lott disciplined harshly (as english leftwing MP Tam Dalyell was not when he made remarks to the effect that Jews Were STicking Thier Grubby Little Fingers in british foriegn policy regarding israel)? has there not been an embarassing crackdown in europe on people from the iddle east totally unrelated to the fact that middle easterners recently slaughtered europeans in a major urban center, and more related to the fact that, well, y'know, they're brown? and have not white (germanic) citizens councils been running the norwegian government, danish mainstream politics, etc for some time now, which can't be said of the US in any state?

i admit france is fairly tolerant, Le Pen aside. howeer, name one possible comaprison to the norwegian "germanics only" immigration law in recent US history (recent=postww2)

[jacob dreyer]

btw marxist revisionists (social democrats)had been active and saying they were an alternative to bolshevism and capitalism at least since 1905 when dear ms. rosa luxembourg dissed them.

[david f]

jacob, don't forget the 1994 language law in france (lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/oct95/0227.html). that irked the brits a bit, and parts were overturned (surprise! with no fanfare). but what is the point of this thread again?

drf

[Croesus]

"He makes a good case that it has. But i also believe pro-americanism has also co-existed. But that doens't mean anti-americanism isn't a problem."

Actually, he makes no case that it has. His argument regarding "degeneracy" is a perfect example of how off-base he is - "degeneracy" never was a major idea held by European intellectuals in the 18th, and even amongst those who did accept it (Rousseau for example), they viewed as a positive good (men were more natural, less artificial in the Americas, and thus more free). Again, he has selected some minor bits of the writings of a very few authors and claimed that this represents European attitudes as a whole toward America. I would argue that at best, anti-Americanism has been and continues to be a minor and relatively unimportant strain of European ideas, and that it has as many adherents in America which are homegrown as it does in Europe. However, Americans tend to focus on it largely because of their own domestic concerns - its basically a stalking horse for issues that Americans have to work out for themselves in other words.

"i am trying to shock you, to shake you from your illogical case."

Mostly you make yourself look stupid, and you make me laugh.

"The 2nd international had the same goal as the 1-4 - utopian communism. For them this has historical truth, even for the liberal capitalist democracies. But they saw themselves as the "middle way" of using democratic process in between the inevitable decay of liberal capitalism and revolutionary communism (e.g. the Bolsheviks)."

Please probide me with one historical document which states that they viewed themselves as a "middle way," or where they used terminology which was synonymous with this. They didn't view themselves as a middle way, they viewed themselves as the only way - Soviet Communism and capitalism weren't viewed as viable (which the term "middle way" presumes) they were viewed as doomed to failure. Orwell's ideas concerning this are illumating, for example.

"But france is not a counter-arguemnt for most of Europe. You should have made your case just for france."

France is a leader of European ideas, trends, etc.; if it wasn't true for France, then a good case can be made that it wasn't true for much of the rest Europe as well. If the author can be selective, I don't really see why I am suddenly wrong for being so.

[Croesus]

drf,

The language law was either overturned, or is not enforced. No one is going off the jail for using Fraglais in adversting, for example, and whenever a court has had to deal with the issue, it has struck the part of the law that it is dealing with down.

[jacob dreyer]

shrieks,thanks drf i never knew that
maybe the french aren't tolerant after all

lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/oct95/0227.html

check it out croesus whadya got to say?

[jacob dreyer]

thats not the point

the pont is: anti america views are common enough in france that the elected legislature would pass a law like this

imagine if the US senate banned the french language. outrage, right? shit, theres outrage when they doodle with thenames of fastfood in the senate cafeteria.

[Croesus]

jacob dreyer,

The law was not enacted due to anti-Americanism; it was enacted to "protect" the French language. The two things are not synonymous. And states of the US have passed their own English-only laws to protect the US from Spanish language incursions as I recall. Does that mean the US is anti-Mexican?

[Croesus]

Anyway, Jacob, and the Anon crowd, I've enjoyed the debate. You folks are still wrong, but its been challenging. 🙂

[david f]

hey Croesus!

however, that (language restrictions from 1994) is an example, much as the "oral sex is illegal in the us" story that went around europe during monicagate: it would give the naive viewer a skewed impression. As i said, the part(s) that were struck down was not reported.

that type of selective reporting generates an image of a country/region, and it gets perpetuated.

hearing jokes on the simpsons ("cheese eating surrender monkies") probably has the same effect on the US impression of france. combine that with the "they armed saddam, and now they're against us, so they're pro terror" effect that's post 9/11, you got yerself a volitile mixture!

but i experienced a slew of antiamericanism while in denmark (i speak the language and you couldn't tell from my accent that i was american), so i would say there is an entrenched, nuanced, subtle anti americanism that exists there at various levels.

there were many stories in denmark in 1996 that "breastfeeding was illegal in the us". many hyperbolic stories were reported as fact. berlingske.dk is full of "analyses of america" that ignore basic legal, cultural, and civic facts. (it appears as though the "facts" are taken from soaps or something, it makes no sense how off the reports are).

we're talking about "52 states", misrepresentation of "two parties" (there are two blocs in denmark, each comprised of many different parties, but the "b?rgerlich" and the "arbeiter" blocs are marked in, surprise, red and blue). or you get a story that begins with, "we all know of the terrible air quality in (pick us city). with that in mind..." there are many intertextual references to urban legends or other tall tales and the subsequent story "confirms" the stereotype or prejudism.

or the 1996 series "fatlanta" where the danish station went around asking americans where certain small towns in denmark were, who anja andersen is, etc. they mocked the first free christmas parades in 1998 in cuba for being "too american". yes, there is a steady litany of anti americanism in denmark.

someone mentioned that the US doesn't give "a rat's ass" about what happens on the other side of the pond. if that's true, that would support an idea that the US is presented elsewhere as "the Other" with regularity and consistency. No socialized medicine, presence of guns, an incomprehensible election system where it appears that the richest person wins, the OJ trial (double jeopardy exists, for example in austira) made a specticle of the law. Monicagate.

it's no wonder that the europeans would talk trash to us when we're overseas. Add in a "GARCON" with a "K" sound, and you're asking for it. not surprising. (or americans running through salzburg singing Sound of Music...)

oh well. let's all have a beer...
cheers,
drf

[david f]

Hey Croesus,

please give examples of those states and those laws that limit spanish. English is the US language de jure, but it's not for anything else, as far as i know.

and what is the french language being "protected from"? it's sure not british english that's flying around the globe...

cheers,
drf

[jacob dreyer]

LOL in some states close to the mexican immigration (california, texas) they actually taught bilingually for a while. (of course they tried to teach in ebonics too)

[david f]

but what were the initiatives that were designed to prohibit spanish and protect english (i would call that anti-mexican/anti immigration, by the way)?

thanks,
drf

[jacob dreyer]

no i agree with you and am poiting out that, far from baning spanish they even teach t in schools

[Croesus]

drf,

Well, what comes to mind are laws which mandate English-only in American schools in some states.

As far as misperceptions of America in Europe, often times, Americans are their own worst enemies in that regard. This is especially true of American media, which often presents a very skewed picture of America as a violent, piggish, overly materialistic, racist, and xenophobic society. I think that's part of the reason why in Western Europe at least American TV shows that used to do well in the wake of de-regulation in the early 1990s, are now doing so poorly.

[Croesus]

drf,

Oh, and American tourists often can be incredibly rude without even knowing that they are, which tends to infuriate Frenchmen. I've seen American tourists walk into Chartres guffawing and talking very loudly, as if they were walking into a supermarket.

[david f]

cool! thanks!

are you aware of any of those anti spanish measures mentioned by Croesus above?
the post reads:
>>"...And states of the US have passed their own English-only laws to protect the US from Spanish language incursions as I recall. Does that mean the US is anti-Mexican?"

[david f]

hey croesus,

exactly -- my point too. the singing around a fountain in salzburg was kind of a bummer. i'm aware of that, and those images are accepted as the normal behavior. but xenophobic?? i've not heard that one before. i have heard that "america isn't really that diverse" comment. but i haven't heard the xenophobic one before.

which states? and those laws would only apply to public education (one more reason to be against that), but still, i can't find anything on which states...

(asking for the "garKon" really gets you off on the right note, too, grin).

thanks,
drf

[jacob dreyer]

"are you aware of any of those anti spanish measures mentioned by Croesus above?"
if thats addressed to ME,
then no.

PS of urse toruists are assholes ut is that just americans? or is it that most tourists happen to be americans?

i think that its the latter, especially given that the italian govt recently railed against the "invasion by blond savages"(read: Germans) of italy.

[Croesus]

david f,

Well, using English words in French - Franglais - is often better than creating a new French word ("le e-mail," and "le supply side" come to mind), especially when the term is technical in nature or really has no synonym in French. Anyway, the law that was reffered to is not enforced, and probably won't because it would be incredibly unpopular (except amongst some fringe elements perhaps).

As to being xenophobic, perhaps that word is a bit harsh, but my point about the US media being one of America's worst enemies as far as its image is concerned remains the same. Anyway, I have some "le e-mail" to attend to.

[david f]

hi Jacob, yes, i was wondering if you knew...

scandinavians poke fun at german tourists, too.

actually, Croesus, i agree with your point, "Americans are their own worst enemies in that regard".

i've had experiences working with french people where they have been rude, arrogant, not understood the point of several analyses but would never admit it, and then claim that any misunderstandings weren't their fault, but the american's/ other's fault (lingua franca was german or danish; and from all-english exchanges)

others i know have had independent poor experiences such as those, too. this is a case of the other side "being its own worst enemy". and neither case forgives rudeness (even out of ignorance) or the prejudical reaction by the others.

oh, who was the politican who wanted the brits to change the name of waterloo station? or was that an urban legend?

thanks,
drf

[Croesus]

Oh, and while I think of it, one of the major ambassadors of America in the 1980s was the show "Dynasty." I can't tell you how many Frenchmen I know got their first impression of America from that show; Britons and Germans as well.

jacob dryer,

Well, every European country has its attitude toward other European countries; this recent German and Italian feuding isn't something of recent import for example. The Dutch have a lot of animosity toward Germans. Of course there is the spat between England and France going back at least to the Hundred Years' War, when English armies rampaged France, acting like a mini-Mongol horde, which still, even though we French booted them out eventually, creates an underlying tension.

[jacob dreyer]

OK

So if you acknowledge that national animosity is existent, then why did so many critique the freedom fry decision?

plus what was dynasty about? i'm a child of the 90's, i never saw it.

i am well aware of european history- its a required course in most american pulic schools.

[david f]

dynasty. yup. and dallas. good call. and many americans now get their impressions of france from the simpsons or from karl rove and rummie. baywatch was the huge one in the 90s. but "germans are wild with david hasselhoff". and in each case, visiting other countries with a polite, open mind makes it pretty cool.

franglais -- yup. that's what i learned in school, too 🙂 (mais il y a longtemps, dupuis j'ai etude francais..., et j'ai oublait tous la langue. je m'excuse, parce-ce que mon francais est mort... or something like that)

l'ordinateur = le computer, for example. (apologies for bad spelling)

is "fin de la semaine" the preferable or official form for "le week-end"? are there guidelines, or is it like the english {cemetary,graveyard,churchyard} where they are more-or-less interchangable?

how is french (or any other language's) net language developing? how do emoticons work, or are there any other ones?

merci bien,
drf

[Anonymous]

>>I find that rather insulting; as if any split that there is between the US and Europe is all Europe's fault.

ALL Europes fault???? Are this fucking stupid? It said nothing of the kind. All it says is that some Europeans hold anti-american attitudes and that this is bad for US-Europe relations.

Misdirection, lies and fallacies are all you got Crow!

[Anonymous]

>>There are very legitimate reasons to be wary of American power, least of all the multiple instances in world history in which a hegemon, even if it thought it was being kind or otherwise beneficial, used its power for ill.

WHICH ISN'T DEFINED AS ANTI-AMERICANISM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

nice clever trick, but we ain't buying

[Anonymous]

>>What he wants to do is make anti-Americanism special in some way, when in fact it really doesn't differ from racism, sexism, etc.

He defines what he thinks it is, gives a backgroud on its existance and explains why it is a problem. This is apparently a problem for eurosluts like yourself, which leads you to lie and employ clever misdirection instead of making actual arguments.

[Anonymous]

>> If he wasn't being derogatory, what else did he mean by it?

maybe he just meant they were old, as in the fact the govermental systems had a past, while poland, et al were newer form. The fact that people took offense showed just how insecure they really were.

[jacob dreyer]

dude don rumsfeld was clearly insulting them. HOWEVER

don rumsfeld did NOT say "we are sick of these blond barbarians invading our beaches" on the topic of german tourism. nor did he say that german diplomats should try out for concentration camp guards in movies. by your logic, anti-italiianism in german politics shoul be worse than anti-americanism (since you seem to feel donald rumsfled and assholes like him are responsible for anti-americanism.) right- and european leaders past and present don't make provocative remarks about other europeans. berlusconi today, de gaulle way abck when off hand. BUT

there is NO anti-franzozisch snetiment in germany. its anti american.

furthermore, ">> That doesn't mean that the statements of these people reflected the American mind at the time, or even if they did, that this was all that Americans thought about Europe. "

implying that, if not all americans are anti-european, anti-europeanism doesn't eixist. since this was an analogy to anti-americnism

it doesn't hae to be all or nothing. not every single european loathes america, nobody is saying that. what we are saying is: along with anti-immigrationism racist politics, anti-american politics have been the trump card of european demagogues for soem time (check out Le Pen.) and increasingly that of mainstream european politicians: joschka fischer for instance, or even schroeder or chirac.

[joe]

"please cite an example of when the right exihibited anti-americanism."

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming September 11 on the ungodliness of the American people.

"pitchfork pat, as dumb as his policies are, really does think he is acting in the best interest of america. he thinks he is just being a good american." And 1950s Communists and 1960s New Lefties really did think they were acting in the best interest of the American people, by freeing them from their oppression.

"American, when will you be worthy of your Trotskyites?" Note that the Trots were America's trots, and the glorious new America was expected, someday. Anti-American? Romantic, idealistic, deluded patriotism?

[Anonymous]

"Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming September 11 on the ungodliness of the American people."

Jews also blamed their misfortunes on failing in the eyes of God. That didn't mean they were anti-Jewish.

"And 1950s Communists and 1960s New Lefties really did think they were acting in the best interest of the American people, by freeing them from their oppression."

Some did and Communists even quoted jefferson and native sources for their inspiration. But the intellectual leadership of the New Left was infected by anti-americanism right from the beginning (which isn't surprising, considering its continental philosophical roots).

I don't think the Communists back then were anti-american as I have defined it. Hostile to america they took their cues from Moscow -- but not really the definition of anti-americanism.

[joe]

We're talking about two different things, then - the plain meaning of anti-american, and Anti-Americanism as a philosophy specific to a certain time and place.

BTW, re: the anti-american New Left: the lead character in Easy Rider was named Captain America, and his bike done up in stars and stripes. The folk revival was a conscious attempt to connect with a more genuine America. There was clearly a large segment of that group who saw themselves as patriotic at heart.

[Anonymous]

what is the plain meaning of anti-american then?

BTW -was easy rider "new left" or just a movie trying to appeal to that audiance? And notice I said intellectual leadership of the NL, which means I wasn't talking about all average people who identified with the new left (though many were infected with this meme).

[fyodor]

"What's wrong with freedom? Freedom's what America's all about!!"

--Billy, Dennis Hopper's character, in Easy Rider

[Anonymous]

that is a good quote. being a rebel is not anti-american. hating rebels who eat cheeseburgers is.

[joe]

"what is the plain meaning of anti-american then?"

Hostile to America and things American, or perceived to be American. A much broader concept than your usage.

[joe]

Thinking that eating a cheeseburger counts as being a rebel is foolish.

[Croesus]

Oracle,

Nothing will surely happen; only nutball neo-Hegelians think that such is the case.

As to Sabine Herold, she's a nutball. Any woman who can claim that there is no right of free speech in her country, and yet talks to crowds in the thousands has a problem as deep as those in the American left who claim that they are "censored" and silenced.

[Anonymous]

"Thinking that eating a cheeseburger counts as being a rebel is foolish."

who said that?

[Pam Anderson]

Sombody called Croesus a "francoslut"??

Wow!

I don't think he's a slut. He comes across as a very busy man. As someone who's got an important job in an office somewhere. One who wouldn't have the time to sit here arguing on a blog, shouting at his screen.

No, I don't think Croesus could possibly be a slut.

[Anonymous]

Croesus, do they still have that statue of that Belgian boy urinating in a fountain in Brussels?

[Croesus]

You mean, Manneke Piss?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I think so.

[Croesus]

I drank from that fountain quite a few times. Why do you ask?

[Anonymous]

Oh, it's nothing. I just had a suspicion.

[Degges Jan]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.penis-enhancement-pills.biz/
DATE: 12/09/2003 08:49:59
Unusual ideas can make enemies.

[Rosenstiel Donna]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://free-penis-enlargement-technique.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 04:33:13
My father never raised his hand to any one of his children, except in self-defense.

[France Kim]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://small-breast.big-breast-success.com
DATE: 01/09/2004 02:48:26
In this grand B movie we call life, there is always a girl.

[Davidov Veronica]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 11:37:06
I have been a stranger in a strange land.

[Camerata Julie]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 212.253.2.204
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 01:43:37
Gratitude is born in hearts that take time to count up past mercies.