USA-EUROPE
1.Analyse and explain the basic differences between the American and Europeanpositions shown in this text!
All of the basic differences shown in the text refer to the same topic: power; more specifically about the use of military power and war as a means of politics and the different opinions on these topics.
The first difference that is mentioned is that Europe reduces its military forces and the investments in them while the United States make efforts to have as much military power as possible.
They also think completely differently about their military and under which circumstances it should intervene. European governments always ask for the consent of the UN first before invading another country, while the US does not really care for the UN decisions according to the text.
Another difference that is mentioned refers to the attitude that the US and the EU have towards terrorism. Europeans for a long time didn't expect terrorists to be capable of using weapons of mass destruction as the Americans do. The worst things they imagined were car bombs and exploding supermarkets. The cause of America's different view are the 9/11 attacks, which took place in America and not in Europe. As a result of President Bush's policy Americans connected this incidence with Saddam Hussein and him with Iraq and therefore invaded this country. Europeans, who saw things more from the outside, thought that this didn’t justify a war like this.
Moreover Americans want the Europeans to be more grateful for the role the US play and how they interact with other countries now; also because the US still see themselves as the savior of Europe in two world wars. In comparison the Europeans are against the increasing military power of the United States because they see it as no longer necessary. Europeans generally dislike the idea of fighting wars because Europeans know how it feels to fight in your own country, which the Americans haven’t experienced for over one hundred years and that often during their history. The US see themselves as a guard of the world’s security, and that may be partly true, as the author mentions that Europe is not able to defend itself from the rest of the world that does not care about rules or moral decisions.
In conclusion the author appeals for the two sides to get over this conflict and to find a solution for their differences.
2. Show what position the author takes and how this becomes clear!
In his article “Americans are from Mars... Europeans are from Venus”, the author A. Taylor explains the diverging attitudes of the US and the EU towards foreign policies and power. Doing this he does not at all favor any of these sides, but generally stays neutral while he criticizes both. In specific matters he obviously has a clear attitude, for instance when it comes to military interventions that served to “remove Saddam from power” (l.30). Therein it appears that he favors the American's ability and power to operate independently in world politics, whereas he criticizes Europe's incapability concerning this (see lines 15 to 18). But he cannot completely identify with America's foreign policy, which is seen in the line 28, where he admits that the reasons for America's war in Iraq are indeed at least partly “irrational and unproven”. But line 29, which says that he does not think that terrorism and WMDs are the main reason for war on Iraq, also indicates this opinion.
Furthermore, Taylor recognizes Europe's drive to avoid war – a desire that evolved with the experiences of what war means for the population of Europe made throughout the last century.
That Taylor is not arguing clearly against one or for the other becomes conspicuous especially at the end of his article, when he encourages and appeals to both America and Europe to “adjust to these new realities” and to stop this unproductive conflict.
3. Analyze and comment on the headline (e.g. connotations) and its relation to the text!
The headline of Taylors article is a simple alteration of the famous idiom “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus”. This phrase is usually used to emphasize the differences between men and women – both are so different from another that they have to even stem from different planets. This idiom is particularly used to illustrate the difficulty of communication and understanding between both, for their way of thinking is often said to be totally dissimilar. With the modification of this idiom also all of its associations are now related to the new counterparts Europe and America. Hence, this headline introduces the reader quite well in to the subject of the article: the differences, the different way of thinking and valuing, and the problem of understanding between both Europe and the US. But taking a closer look at how the roles are cast in this headline, another parallel to the text's content might be found. America is replacing stands for men, Europe for women. In public social understanding, men are the ones who are or at least are said to be more aggressive, combative and regardless personalities. In contrast to that, women are often said to be more sensitive, considerate and placid, or at least less violent. This is quite well mirrored by the “male” America and the “female” Europe. In the text, America is described as the one who is attacking and fighting wars – more or less carelessly -, but also as strong and able to fight, just like men are said to be. Europe however plays the more peaceful, weak and community-oriented role in this parable, fulfilling the “typically female” attributes. The title prepares the reader for and forecasts the basic difference between the two powers and thus perfectly well chosen. Of course those male-female-stereotypes are not to be seen as general truths, especially in our emancipated society, but the associations which are artfully created in the headline and then taken up again serve very well in this context.
4. Show, (2 examples, give lines!) how and why the author uses rhetorical devices! The first rhetorical device is an enumeration (l.31 ff.). In this case it supports the argument that it is right to stop Saddam Hussein, so it emphasizes the statement and this is its function.
The second rhetorical device is an image. In line two the author talks about the United States and Europe drifting apart from each other, which clearly is not about the two continents but about the way they behave and interact. In the last two lines there is another image. “Screaming at each other across the ocean” is not what literally happens. It means that the governments and also the citizens of Europe and the U.S. should not behave like small children and start screaming at the most unimportant problems or act as if they were the only ones that are always right. Moreover it implies that coming together and speaking to each other quietly would be a much more helpful way of communication.
Those two images are used to make it easier to imagine what the author wants to express. They also underline his statements and also make it more interesting and varied.
Comment
The cartoon shows a small man with a cowboy hat and two guns that exactly looks like the cartoon of a sheriff. Around the man there are a lot of signs that describe what he wears and why and what he looks like and why. This makes the whole cartoon look like the study of an animal or a human in a biology book for children or like instructions for designing something. The headline says “How I draw George W. Bush so that I get my cartoons reprinted in Europe”, and the signs below explain exactly this. The man depicts George W. Bush as it is said above. The signs contain pieces of advice like “Make him a cowboy (they love cowboys in Europe)”. They are not to be taken seriously but as we as Europeans laugh about this cartoon we still know that the cartoonist is partly right. Bush was and is seen as a cowboy, a simple guy who would rather shoot than talk and feels surrounded by Indians and women –rogue states and coward Europeans . Moreover a lot of people think that he tries to be the police of the world as another sign says. The big guns show the potential of the US military forces, but also America's love affair with handguns, that help a man to be a man, which Europeans generally don't approve of. Another point is that because of his conservative policy of ruthlessness in so many ways, he is pictured with itchy trigger fingers, as a guy who shoots first and then talks or thinks. But this policy also makes him seem stupid, because in the end he was not successful in lraq and could not help his nation during the financial crisis. The decisions he made were often seen as nonsense and too rash. That might be the reason for the “pea sized brain” and the “confused expression” cartoonists are instructed to use.
For a lot of Europeans this would be acceptable as a cartoon of Bush and this is where the cartoonist makes a clever turn. He seems to supports the common and critical opinion of George W. Bush, but adds ironical phrases like “people are wiser in Europe” or “.. to emphasize how Americans descended from apes” which makes it absolutely impossible to believe that he can't be completely serious. He uses a lot of European prejudices, partly admitting that their criticism of Bush may be justified, a and you first agree with the cartoonist. But then he makes you feel ridiculous in your over-generalized, prejudiced view of America and all Americans, but he does it cleverly, because he criticizes Europeans in general only as making things a bit too simple. In conclusion the whole cartoon is a parody of the common European opinion on Bush, which perhaps criticizes both sides, as there may be some truth in Europe's view of Bush. But Europeans clearly exaggerate their criticism, depicting which, on the other hand, is a nice excuse for the cartoonist to draw Bush as negatively as he does.
- Unlike France, Germany or Britain, America has never lost more than 5 percent of her male population between 18 and 28 in a foreign war. This explains everything about US foreign policy. Explain and discuss this statement of a British journalist in 2005
Europe, the old world, has gone through a lot. Being the arena of both World Wars it is especially Europe that had to learn about the cruelty and the costs of war. About 17 million people had to die in the First and about 56 million in the Second World War. Also the massive destruction of whole landscapes and cities was more than just an economical damage. The misery that came with the wars plagued Europeans with unbearable suffering, even years after they had ended.
Though America was involved in both wars and made a decisive contribution to end both of them, it was never involved in the same way as France, Germany and Britain. It was neither American ground on which the wars were fought (except Pearl Harbor), nor was there any comparable destruction or great economical damage for the US. This as well as the fact that “America has never lost more than 5 percent of her male population between 18 and 28 in a foreign war” as a British journalist declares in the quote given above, shows that America has never suffered severe damages at home through foreign wars like Europe. The said European nations had to suffer losses incomparable to those little of the US. These differences of experiences with war surely also influence the modern foreign policies of both America and Europe. That might also verify the British journalist's opinion to a high degree. US foreign policy is much more open to military action and war than that in Europe which has at least since WW II been trying to avoid any of the like. The fact that “America has never lost more than 5 percent of her male population between 18 and 28 in a foreign war” might have been decisive for this attitudinal divergence. Apart from the suffering and the grief among the civil population of the US that was caused by the losses of so many men, also the economical losses that came with this loss of the most productive workers, was far smaller than the suffering and grief and economical damage through human losses in Europe – at least in relation to the total number of population and economy. The cutting memories of the immense misery do – due to these proportions – influence the European foreign policy much more. America however is used to militarily intervention in any conflict in the world with relatively small own losses. Therefore it has no reason to avoid wars, or at least less reasons to do so than the rest of the world, especially Europe, which makes the US seem combative, and which obviously inspired this British journalist to his statement.
Translation
Die Beziehungen Frankreichs zu den USA waren nie einfach - nicht seitdem De Gaulle meinte, die Amerikaner würden versuchen Frankreich seinen berechtigten rechtmäßigen Platz unter den mächtigsten Nationen der Welt zu verwehren, zum Beispiel dadurch, dass es Frankreich nicht bei seinen Bemühungen unterstützte eigene Atomstreitkräfte aufzubauen. Wie viel einfacher wäre doch das Leben für uns Europäer, wenn wir uns doch nur einmal einer kleinen, munteren Welle des Anti-Amerikanismus hingeben könnten – fröhlich darin vereint unsere eigenen Streitkräfte aufzubauen, damit wir uns verteidigen können. Wir könnten wieder unsere eigene Kultur (weiter)entwickeln, unverfälscht von Ausländern.
In erster Hinsicht Auf den ersten Blick geben die Amerikaner uns Europäern eine Menge an Gründen für Unmut und Vorurteile, vor allem wenn so getan wird, also ob Westeuropa gar nicht wirklich ein anderen eigener Kontinent sei, sondern eine Art transatlantisches Anhängsel Amerikas, das noch mehr als genug Staaten bietet, die darauf warten amerikanisiert zu werden.
Während sie es nicht erkennen oder ignorieren, dass wir verschiedene Sprachen sprechen, kommen sie immer noch herüber, um uns über die Gefahren des früheren Kommunismus der Sowjets und über die Vorteile einer Wirtschaft im amerikanischen Stil zu belehren, ohne zu erkennen, dass die meisten europäischen Kommunisten Moskau sowieso hassten und dass die europäische Gemeinschaft fast so reich und wichtig wie die Vereinigten Staaten geworden ist.
Warum um alles in der Welt setzen wir uns nicht gegen diesen amerikanischen Unsinn durch und kehren zurück zu unserer eigenen großartigen Kultur und Zivilisation? Mit Deutschland, einem starken Spieler im großen Spiel des wirtschaftlichen Aufschwungs/Erholung und mit Frankreich an seiner Seite, was sollte uns davon abhalten einen gesunden Stolz darauf zu entwickeln, was Europa schaffen kann, wenn es die Karten, die es hat, gut überlegt ausspielt.
