My, how pretentious the soccer discussion has become some 200 posts later.
Anyway, I'll chime in so let me say this: Maybe it's qualities possessed by them ("the rest of the world") rather than by us which "makes" "the rest of the world" "anti-American".
For example, if "the rest of the world" is full of jealousy and resentment and a feeling of helplessness, then those very natural human sentiments alone would be enough to "make" them "anti" us. And this would be true no matter what Americans are like or how much "disconnect between our global pretensions and the lack of worldliness of our citizens" there is (or isn't).
There is nothing more annoying than when some know-it-all points to powerless, jealous people indulging in natural human emotions and then insists that those peoples' feelings are my fault. The feelings of other people are not my fault, sir. Can't they control their own feelings? Their jealousy, their resentment, their bitterness? Don't you think foreigners can control those feelings? (Do you think them animals?)
And the corresponding implication, that there would be less anti-Americanism if more American citizens would just become more "worldly", is just silly and I can't believe you actually believe it. Furthermore, what exactly would it mean for us to be more "worldly"? That we watch PBS more? That we embrace socialism more? What?
Oh let me guess, it's all about the soccer... We need to watch soccer, is that it? Like I said, so many "reasons" why we should watch soccer, yet none of them having very much to do with how entertaining the sport is....
Soccer is just one of many examples where silly, annoying American "exceptionalism" displays itself.
Let's parse this. Mr. Joe American dislikes soccer. This is "annoying" to foreigners. Therefore those foreigners, being so "annoyed", dislike America in general.
And this is Joe American's fault, for being "silly", and "exceptional". Therefore he should like soccer (among other things).
This is just nonsense. It's a weak and cowardly argument.
If some foreigners are so "annoyed" by the fact that I don't like soccer, did you ever stop to consider the possibility that maybe this is a psychological issue for them, and not me, to work out for themselves? After all: why the hell do they care which sport I like?
Tell me please, are soccer fans really so insecure?
How can a nation deign to dictate to the world when something on the range of half of the members of its parliament have never held a passport?
Your socio-political comments about the U.S. might be more interesting if you were aware that we don't actually have a "parliament". Best,
A good start would be that you not immediately deem unworthy that which you have not taken the time or effort to explore the worthiness of. Which is how the soccer discussion dovetails with the political discussion.
I could care a fig leaf whether you want to watch, like, or even care about soccer. But when people start calling it a "fag" sport, a "gay" sport, and making hackneyed observations such as the link between soccer enjoyment and socialist tendencies, those of us who see how ridiculous those sentiments are have every right to log on and tell you so.
And when people start criticizing other peoples and countries for their love of soccer when they have no interest in any of those peoples and countries, or the world outside provinical America, those of us who see how ridiculous those sentiments are have every right to log on and tell you so.
How can a nation deign to dictate to the world when something on the range of half of the members of its parliament have never held a passport? Your socio-political comments about the U.S. might be more interesting if you were aware that we don't actually have a "parliament"
As should have been obvious, I used "parliament" in the generic sense--small, rather than large "p." I did so only because I wasn't sure if the numbers worked if you counted the Senate. If you insist on literalness, I'll use the more clunky "House of Representatives" next time.