First, a disclosure: I’ve worked for small and Fortune 100 companies, dealing with internal and external customers around the entire globe.
Based on my experience, I can tell you that any rational, sane business person expecting to sell products or services overseas understands business people in other countries prefer to close deals only after establishing a relationship with a foreign business and not with complete strangers. There must be an opening for deeper dialog and understanding based on mutual trust before commitments and money flow readily.
Establishing this trustful dialog also means being respectful of each others’ cultural differences.
Making a sincere effort to learn enough of a foreign language to be polite and making a conscious effort to learn something about their history are hallmarks of respect.
Simple use of customary protocols in greeting like shaking hands with Americans or bowing to Asians are also signs of respect.
Yeah, it works both ways. People from other countries don’t necessarily shake hands right away; touching another person’s bare flesh is awfully intimate, isn’t it? And yet Americans expect and demand this intimacy in greeting complete strangers, even between strangers of different genders.
Conservatives who pout and whine about President Obama’s acknowledgment of other cultural norms of civility exemplify "ugly Americans" who embarrass us as a nation. They’re like toddlers who have a tantrum when they don’t get their way; nobody wants to give in to somebody else’s coddled child who cannot be bothered with minor civilities required to earn someone’s trust.
And that’s exactly what I see in John McCormack’s performance today on MSNBC — the prototypical "ugly American" whose demands for conformity to our American cultural norms while on somebody else’s turf make it more difficult to earn trust and do business.
It’s because of President Obama’s polite observation of other countries’ customs that his trip overseas was an unqualified success.
He treated the leaders of APEC countries like respected global trading partners, not like contemptible mortal enemies; he certainly didn’t act like a needy, spoiled child who must be accommodated and cannot be trusted to act with care and reason in future dealings. He set the tone for open discussion in the future without being confrontational.
I’ve seen many critiques even here among FDL community members expressing dismay that Obama did not bring up human rights issues with China during his trip. Uh, hello? If a stranger you never met before came calling upon your home and told you shortly after meeting you that you were ugly and you smelled, what would you do, especially if the person who said that to your face was ugly and smelled?
This is not exactly a formula for a successful, long-term relationship built on trust, yes?
Our country has lost any moral authority because of its own record of civil rights violations; have we forgotten the poor of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina, how we failed them? have we the conduct of some of our troops and contractors in Iraq, let alone the rather fraudulent manner in which the war itself was sold to the United Nations? And what about rendition and torture and assassination squads? These are just a sampling of our more recent challenges; you can bet that other countries are able to recite a much longer list of human rights infractions by the U.S.
We’re dirty with regards to human rights, and we’re in no position to insult other countries hosting us by calling them out on the same.
Knowing and understanding this, it seems perfectly obvious that President Obama was intent on opening a door to further open dialog in the future, by being the perfect guest instead of an "ugly American" at this early stage in his relations with Asian countries.
It’s irrational and ridiculous that conservatives like McCormack insist President Obama act not like sane business persons might when dealing with their largest potential customers and bankers, but as if he owned the world and could afford to disrespect the countries the president is visiting for the first time. It’s as if conservatives don’t want our president to be respected and admired by leaders around the world.
Oh, wait…



21 Comments







Yeah, and it’s not like many of the foreign countries were actually listening to anything BushCo has been saying for the last few years so acting like them would not be a particularly intelligent move.
But then, it is a conservative stating that Obama should act more like Bush.
Thanks for putting added context to Obama’s trip and actions, and for the video of Jane continuing to fight the good fight. Restoring our country’s place among civilized nations is a process that will take a long time.
Is there some rule against Libs reading that book? Every single time I have ever heard a Lib use the expression “Ugly American” they have looked foolish for getting it backwards.
The “Ugly American” was the good guy, the one who went out to the villages with the farmers and got his hands dirty actually making things better. Didn’t he organize a start up company owned and operated by locals, also?
From the wiki on the book:
And it’s not like it’s only the liberals who have used it as shorthand as a descriptor for the propensity for US citizens traveling overseas to act in this fashion. The protagonist may have been the hero of the book but most folks (including those of us who read it years ago), recognize that the phrase is truly applicable to the many far more than the few who may be the exceptions to the stereotype.
But you know this already, you’re just trying to impress with your lit credentials against “the Libs”.
In this article the term “ugly American” is not used in reference to the book; you will take careful note of the lowercase “u” in “ugly,” yes? It’s a term of art referring to a patronizing, Ameri-centric attitude which does harm to America’s image overseas.
It might also do you good to think about the book, “Ugly American;” the title was meant to point to the contrast between the main character’s behavior and that of “ugly Americans.”
[edit: No, there's no prohibition against "Libs" reading. Some of us actually read material besides "Dick and Jane" and "Going Rogue." May I recommend Graham Greene's work, "The Quiet American"? Perhaps an examination of nationalistic naivete is in order.]
Grumpy, you need to read the book.
Rayne,
First, check your title: the U is upper case, not lower, and enclosed in quotations as is proper for the title of a book.
Second, don’t snark: I didn’t say Libs didn’t read, I asked about that one specific book.
First, headline style at this site is generally NYT — cap first letter except for prepositions. Style isn’t uniformly enforced across all posts, but that’s the style used in this post.
Second, bite me. I don’t take orders from people who refer to people as “Libs.” You know damned well you were being snide.
Rayne: I see too much Obama worship in your writing.
1. You wrote: It’s because of President Obama’s polite observation of other countries’ customs that his trip overseas was an unqualified success.
How was it a great success? What things concretely did he achieve? I see the trip as mostly an extended photo-op, and a chance to escape from the unemployment-health care crises that he has mismanaged.
2. You wrote: “He treated the leaders of APEC countries like respected global trading partners, not like contemptible mortal enemies… .”
So what? What did he achieve? Like you, I happen to have lots of overseas experience. In fact, I live in an APEC country. APEC has done absolutely NOTHING for the countries that it “represents”. It is well-known in Asia amongst the APEC people that this is a chance for these leaders (most of them dictatorial by the way) to gather at 5 star hotels and sip French wine and English whiskey. APEC has achieved nothing for the people of the countries that it supposedly represents. In fact, one of the leaders of an APEC country who was shaking Obama’s hand and mixing with him helped to overthrow the legimitately elected leader of his country. APEC’s 20 year policy of “engagement” with Burma has been a huge failure and really has allowed unscrupulous generals and politicians from APEC countries to help pillage that country.
3. You wrote: “We’re dirty with regards to human rights, and we’re in no position to insult other countries hosting us by calling them out on the same. Knowing and understanding this, it seems perfectly obvious that President Obama was intent on opening a door to further open dialog in the future…”
You do understand, Rayne, don’t you that Obama has continued many of the human rights abuses that W began? Like forced renditions? Like sending prisoners to 3rd world countries where they can be tortured? Like keeping Gitmo open (recent news story indicates Obama will MISS his deadline of closing it). Like refusing to release photos of torture? Like state secrets? Like ESCALATING the war in Afghanistan and spreading it to Pakistan? And what kind of message did Obama send to China when he refused to meet with the Dalai Lama before his trip?
Your entire diary sets up a false dichotomy:
conservatives (bad guys)
Obama (good guy)
without recognizing that your good guy is doing almost the same things as W did: same Secretary of Defense and he promoted most of W’s generals!
First, I don’t worship Obama. He was not my first choice.
But as I pointed out in the first grafs of my post, there are realistic expectations business persons have in the real world about dealing with others overseas. Obama did those basic, simple things.
And yet conservatives have painted every damned thing he did as a failure.
Was this a perfect event? Hell no. Was there any chance at all that it could have been? Hell no.
Pretend for just one moment that he had gone to China and said, “Your record on human rights sucks.” Even if he had been squeaky clean and not stuck in a box by the crap Bush left him, the Chinese do not look at situations in over the short run. They look at things from a much wider perspective, from the hundred-years viewpoint. From their perspective we most clearly suck and will suck for a very long time on human rights.
And quite bluntly, we do. We’ve sucked for almost our entire American history, right back to the founding fathers’ failure to recognize non-whites and women as equals. We can’t even acknowledge without considerable dispute that we are sitting on the lands of occupied nations.
I’ve already made my point in your own post about Obama’s unique limitations, will not elaborate here again. You’re setting up your own excessive expectations for him given the situation.
Frankly, there is no one on the left side of the political spectrum in the U.S. who would have handled this better because of the enormity of political and economic repercussions that would result from a more confrontational first meeting.
May I suggest reading about “asymmetric warfare” from the perspective of former PLA officers?
Not demanding he be sent to the Hague = “worship”, I guess.
As for the Cons’ saying that Obama went to China to beg them in to be nice to us and not call in their loans: China needs us every bit as much as we need them, if not more. We’re in this together.
Don’t You think the ugly American comes from our business people going all over the world trying to extort other counties from everything they have that could be profitable. Therefore using them and there valubles for our gain, while caring little about their people or the costs of what we do.
Had not the Saudi’s been smart enough to nationalize their oil, we would still be pumping it out for our gain, while paying them a pittence for it.
This has repeated itself throughout the world with oil and everykind of mineral, even to crops like rubber, coffee, and bananas.
The ugly American could come from the fact we were for a long time the users of the world, and now that others are using us we can’t inderstand why would they do that. Maybe because we taught them how to do it.
P. S. The conservatives are the ugly Americans, because they believe in using everybody from the people in this Country to all those abroad.
The spinmaster said it all, when He said we are Americans we don’t bow to anyone.
First, I’m sorry I distracted from the discussion. I don’t know why, but I’ve always found it really aggravating that that particular misconception became common usage.
“And quite bluntly, we do (suck). We’ve sucked for almost our entire American history, right back to the founding fathers’ failure to recognize non-whites and women as equals. We can’t even acknowledge without considerable dispute that we are sitting on the lands of occupied nations.”
Okay, that’s fair enough. On the issue of Human Rights, what nations didn’t suck in 1776? What nations progressed as far as we did in the last 230 years?
Most of them, and if being almost bankrupt, lost many of our rights, and had our wealth squandered on useless wars, Corporate welfare, and a bloated almost useless military, and our economy in the dumps, and our future in question. We have done real great.
I believe I said, “On the issue of Human Rights” and I don’t believe that “most” other nations were better 230 years ago. Are you forgetting that the Founding Fathers were the progressives of their day? The Bill of Rights put them way ahead of most everybody.
Rayne you wrote: “I’ve already made my point in your own post about Obama’s unique limitations, will not elaborate here again. You’re setting up your own excessive expectations for him given the situation.”
It was Obama, not me, who promised that he would:
renegotiate NAFTA; deal with FISA; close GITMO this year; end the hiring of lobbyists in his administration; challenge and change DADT and DOMA; bring “new faces to Washington because the same old faces cannot bring about real change”; hold all healthcare reform meetings in public AND televise them live on C-SPAN (man was that a whopper lie!); have the most open government in American history (but now he wants torture photos to be buried and is pushing state secrets, just like George W.); fight for real health care reform (lately he just talks about “insurance reform”) and on and on….
He made those promises repeatedly to millions of Americans (pandering for votes). So I guess yes, I have expectations from him–as do millions of other voters–that he fight for the agenda that he promised. Instead, we’ve seen one flip-flop after another.
What happened to the Audacity of Hope? What happened when Candidate Obama became President?
To close Guantanamo, you have to find a place to hold the people in it. Congressional Republicans have so far managed to successfully demagogue this issue to keep the detainees from being brought to the US for trial. Feel like convincing your neighbor that what he/she heard about detainees on FOX is wrong? Then you’ll be helping to close Gitmo.
This is why the decision to hold the first trials in New York City is particularly important. With New Yorkers, the primary targets of 9/11, showing the rest of the country that they’re not whiny bedwetters afraid of giving accused criminals a fair trial (the righties’ latest excuse for not having one is that they don’t want to see terrorists spew propaganda on the witness stand. Well, boo hoo), then the political objections will melt away very quickly. (That is, of course, why the Republicans are howling so loudly about it now: They know they’re about to lose a favorite weapon.)
Decades ago, (1960s?) when “The Ugly American” book was first published, the term ironically referred to the good diplomat who tried to understand the culture he was dealing with. Now it has the non-ironic plain meaning.
Ok! I’ll agree the Bill of Rights put them ahead.
Even they didn’t live by it, and we done a great job since trying to kill the Bill.
Skuse Me, but I am so sick of politicains trying to make the rest of the world look like fools in our eyes, while they are kicking our asses in many respects.
We forget that today Japan and Germany, have become what they are in only the years since the war. Thier advancement in that time makes us look like slugs in the worlds time.
What we built after the war we won, is on pretty shaky ground, and our great society, economy, and fiscal sustainability is in real doubt.
“We forget that today Japan and Germany, have become what they are in only the years since the war.”
In other words, they’ve made fantastic progress ever since we rebuilt them in our own image?
Thier advancement in that time makes us look like slugs in the worlds time. They took over 1,000 years to have a representative democracy.
It’s funny to hear you talk about “the worlds time” when you keep ignoring the historical context of the question. “On the issue of Human Rights, what nations didn’t suck in 1776?” You answered, “Most of them” but we’re still waiting for specifics. Please do tell us how “most” countries in 1776 had freedom of speech, assembly, press and religion, the right of the accused to due process, trial by jury, advice by counsel…