Scrappy, the link's not working.

Should work now, Caroma.

People are smashing McDonald's up, pouring Coke down drains, withdrawing American brands from Parisian restuarants--and it's as common, and noticeable, as burning our flag.

I say this not to be inflammatory, but although clearly you have seen images of such things happening, I haven't. I don't doubt that they are happening, since you cite them. I'd certainly agree that burning flags, renaming potato products and smashing up (locally owned and run) fast food franchises are all ineffectual ways of expressing one's emotions and/or political views. And that vandalism, however viscerally satisfying it may be to the people involved, does nothing to forward one's argument.

But your post sounds, to me, disparaging and reductive. I'm sorry if that seems like an unfair assessment or an overreaction, and perhaps that isn't how you intended it to sound. I'm trying not to be offended.

McDonalds and Coke in particular have very specifically set about making money out of selling American-ness. If they are held up as a symbol of America it is because that is unambiguously how the companies have consciously expressed themselves. People in less wealthy countries see the wealth and glamour of everyday US life thanks to the fact that we now live in such weirdly information-rich societies that even Romanian peasants get satellite TV (along with their wood-burning stove, their scythe-cut grass and their milk squeezed fresh from the cow). For the most part they will never experience the luxuries that are taken for granted by many (most?) Americans. But they can identify themselves with the image of wealth and success that they are shown on the silver screen by buying a Coke, or some fries from McDonalds - these tangible pieces of America. The logos are almost talismans these days, and the chance to consume that which is consumed on the silver screen is terribly seductive. People don't drink Coke because it's such a yummy drink, either in the US or abroad; they drink Coke because of its symbolism. The introduction of a new recipe back in the 80s (was it the 80s? I think so?) had a terrible impact upon sales not because people disliked the taste - in surveys it was rated more highly than the old recipe - but because Coke represented more than a sweet brown mix of water and chemicals. It's a symbol of America. I don't think it's childish or adolescent to perceive it as such - it's what the brand's success is founded upon, both in the US and abroad. Especially abroad.

But I do think it's legitimate to have reservations about cultural colonisation in whatever form, and I don't think that it's a simple matter. One may envy and aspire to the material wealth and First World glamour of the American Dream depicted in movies and advertisments, and be a willing consumer of such pop cultural ephemera or brandnames as are within one's reach, and still have mixed feelings about the US.

Your average Mexican may well want to live the American Dream and still not think America's impact upon their own country has been entirely positive. Many countries feel that way. Many countries feel that way about Britain too, I dare say, and any more powerful country that has interacted with them. These relationships tend to be multifaceted, and rich countries exploit less rich countries in subtle and less subtle ways.

I mean, in recent years we've had plenty of instances of our produce being boycotted abroad - British sheep being burned by angry French farmers, beef being refused long after the BSE problems had been addressed, blah blah blah. So I'm trying to empathise with you, but I do feel a little like I've just been verbally slapped. Because yes, I consume US culture, I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I like many US movies, I drink your beverages, I buy your overpriced icecream. There are many American things (and people!) that I appreciate.

Nevertheless, I have reservations about the impact that the US, both insidiously and overtly, has upon my country. I am not at all happy about the war or our role in it. I sympathise with people who demonstrate to express their unhappiness about this war, and I can see that using something that is perceived as a cultural icon, be it a "French" fry or a can of coke, can be an effective form of shorthand to express one's feelings. You're quite right - neither individuals demonstrating nor governments negotiating will have any effect upon what the US does. It's got the most power in the world right now. It doesn't have to listen.

I'm intrigued to know what the "mature" response should be, though.

Incidentally, I do appreciate that France is a First World country. My post is pretty messy, argument-wise, which may be related to the whole 3am thing - it's easier to illustrate the reasons for Big Macs and Coke being seen as glamorous with examples from countries like Romania, but I do think that the ambivalent feelings expressed towards the US in other, wealthier countries have the same underlying reasons. Only, especially at present, wedded to an awareness of some pretty messy political situations, and a pattern of "Fuck You" messages being sent from the US during Dubya's reign thus far. (Kyoto agreement et al.) It's a tangled thing, this mix of emotion and intellect, aspiration and envy and resentment and disdain.

Colonialism is no less colonial, imho, for its being waged by Multinational corporations rather than Nations. An awful lot of these Multinationals are based in the US. Identity becomes blurred. It's messy.

And I'm really not expressing myself well.

edited for clarity. Not all that successfully, I fear.

I think you did just fine Fay.

Oh, no, I didn't mean mature thoughtful people, just the teens and students who see it as a cool way to cut class and then run to the latest American flick.

As for the Coke and McDonald's boycotts and all, I don't know why people think some sugar water or fried potatoes mean anything except that the company that makes them started randomly in a certain country. They try it in America, too: Haagen-Dazs is from New Jersey and so is Heineken, and they try and get the cachet of Europe going. Of course, most people are in on the truth and call it Hoboken-Daz.

I guess what annoys some Americans is that Europe made a choice and now seems mad that we didn't go the same way. After two wars of violence that Americans really can't comprehend, they decided to spend their money on social justice and a subsidized lifestyle-free health care, free college, cheap housing, etc. Fine. But America decided to keep its muscles strong, and let everybody choose their own doctors and houses and go their own way, which for a majority works well. And we used a lot of that muscle, and a lot of money we could have used here, to stop Europe from being nibbled away by a horrible facist regime. It's OK, that's what friends do, and the benefits flow both ways. But now it's seen that Europe doesn't want us to use our hard-won military might to free another people. There's also nasty undercurrents of anit-Semitism in some of what you see over here, especially from France.

I do feel sorry for the Brits, though. They;re no longer a superpower, which must suck already, and now all their former colonies, from Iraq to Palestine to Zimbabwe, seem to be in a mess. No wonder they're so nervous about America making the same mistakes they did. I guess they don't realize we have no intention of taking over anything.

But America decided to keep its muscles strong, and let everybody choose their own doctors and houses and go their own way, which for a majority works well.

I'd just like to say that Caroma isn't speaking for all of us Americans. Many of whom haven't gotten a chance to choose our own doctors since our employers switched to HMOs.

But now it's seen that Europe doesn't want us to use our hard-won military might to free another people.

Actually, Europe didn't try to stop *us* doing it. They just wouldn't vote for the *UN* to do it. And it's hardly "Europe": last I checked, the UK, and (God help us) Bulgaria, and other bits of "the new Europe" support the war. Unfortunately for President Bush, France, which has a U.N. veto, does not.

Actually, do you know that Bush as President has no power about Kyoto? In this country, Congress ratifies treaties, not the Pres. Now, you could argue that if he really really wanted to, he could have lobbied for it, but frankly from what I understand it's a mess to begin with (exempting China?!) but not even Clinton bothered to try to push for it.

And when the Senate did vote on it, they voted it down 99-0, Democrats and Republicans alike. And the UK Parliament didn't pass it either, right? In fact, didn't only Romania actually ratify the thing?

So, while he could have been more tactful about it, I don't see how Bush can be blamed for this one.

There's also nasty undercurrents of anit-Semitism in some of what you see over here,

I refer you to any of Pat Buchanan's recent outbursts against the war. Or, I'm sure, Farrakhan's, although I haven't seen any cited.

Anti-Semitism, like racism, pops up all over, like crabgrass or bamboo. Damn bamboo.

Well, sure, but nobody takes Buchanan or Farrakhan seriously. There's no rallies for Buchanan, he's not in office, and there's not gangs of teenagers going to Williamsburg and beating up Hasidic kids.