# Posted 6:33 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHAT IS ANTI-AMERICANISM? More precisely, how does one differentiate legitimate criticism of the United States from unjust criticism that reflects anti-American prejudice? As things now stand, Europe's role in military affairs is that of obvserver and critic. As such, its influence rests on the perception of its criticism as sincere and constructive, rather than disingenuous and resentment-driven.

Identifying prejudice demands a definition of prejudice. Webster's provides some guidance on this matter, but not much. It offers multiple definitions including both "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" and "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics".

At first glance, the dependence of such definitions on controversial concepts such as 'sufficient knowledge' and 'irrational hostility' suggests that prejudice is in the eye of the beholder. But from experience, we know that it isn't. As an American, the first example of prejudice that comes to mind is that of racial prejudice. The segregation of schools, water fountains, public buses and swimming pools offered concrete evidence that prejudice can be very, very real.

In the case of Europe and the United States, we have no such evidence to rely on. Instead, Americans notice prejudices in the words and concepts through which Europeans express themselves. The reverse pattern is evident as well, with Europeans often detecting a definite closed-mindedness in American thought and speech.

This contrast, however, does not reduce the value of drawing on examples such as racial prejudice in the United States, since physical manifestations of prejudice such as segregated housing are reflections of prejudiced thoughts. In fact, one might say that segregation was not an example of prejudice, but rather an example of discrimination that reflected the prejudice known as racism.

Thus it comes as no surprise that the end of segregation has not brought an end to prejudice. What has changed is that we now must argue about whether an specific instance of mistreatment reflects prejudice, or instead the simple lack of concern that one stranger often shows to another.

In a recent experiment, researchers sent out pairs of resumes which were identical except for the fact that one of them had a "white" name on it, where as the duplicate had a "black" one. Perhaps not surprisingly, the researchers found that employers were considerably more likely to offer interviews and jobs to applicants with white names. (For the moment, I'm going to take it for granted that the results obtained from the experiment were valid. Eve Tushnet isn't so sure.)

Even if one assumes that this experiment documents a clear instance of discrimination, it is hard to know exactly what was going through employers' minds while the resumes were being read. In fact, it is extremely unlikely that any of the readers consciously said to themselves that because an applicant had a black sounding name, he or she was less likely to be competent regardless of what the resume indicated.

Instead, it is probable that the presence of a black name subconsciously raised the standards to which an applicant would be held. Thus, while reviewing black applicants' resumes, employers believed that they were making an objective, rational decision based on tangible evidence.

Before applying the lessons of this example to the trans-atlantic divide, it is worth considering for a moment the possibility that there were some employers who consciously decided to turn down applicants because they were black. Even then, it is hard to demonstrate that this decision reflected prejudice, defined as a belief that is irrational or based on insufficient information.

I would guess that if there were employers who consciously decided to turn down black applicants, it is not because they consciously resent blacks or believe that they are inherently inferior. Rather, they may believe that since there is a greater statistcal probability that a black individual has committed a crime, it is rational for their firm to reject black applicants in order minimize the probability that they are hiring lawbreakers.

Such behavior is, of course, illegal. The law preventing it, however, reflects a moral imperative rather than logical one. Yet what if the employer in question believed that his firm should avoid hiring blacks because they are, on average, taller? In that case, the employer would be damaging his own interest in finding competent employees. In that sense, he is irrational. But is he prejudiced? For all we know, he is simply a fool.

Now what if an employer rejected black applicants because he believed that they are, on average, shorter than others? We could even stipulate in this case that the job in question is best performed by tall employees, e.g. filling shelves in a bookstore. Again, it is hard to know if the employer is racist rather than simply a fool.

Wisely, the law bars all racial discrimination regardless of motive. Why is that? After all, the market might benefit if fools lost business because of their irrationality. I think the answer here has to do with the cultural context in which decisions are made. Because of the history of racial prejudice in America, it makes sense -- both moral and economic -- to assume that the mistreatment of black job applicants reflects prejudice, defined as per Webster's.

With regard to European anti-Americanism, there is no such historical context to faciliate observation or decision-making. Rather, it might be more accurate to say that the prevalence of pro-American sentiment alongside anti-American sentiment in much of Europe prevents one from relying on historical context as a decisive indicator.

Even if one were to focus on the short span of time separating September 11th from the present, one would have to acknowledge that pro-American sentiment is no less strong than its negative counterpart. As Le Monde's banner headline declared on September 12th, "Nous sommes tous des Américains." -- "We are all Americans."

In the face of such compelling empathy, one has to have an extremely sensitive method of detecting anti-Americanism if one wants to assert that it exists. To that end, it is worth reconsidering the most probable explanation for the outcome of the resume experiment described above: subconscious prejudice. To be more specific, the prejudice consists of a subconscious belief that blacks are either less competent employees, more prone to criminal activity or something along the same lines.

The specificity of such prejudices is extremely important, since it enables them to co-exist with general attitudes toward a given group that are not necessarily biased or even negative. As Eve Tushnet points out, some of the employers profiled in the resume may well have been black.

Clearly, such individuals are not prejudiced against blackness itself, but rather against specific traits they associate with elements of the black population. Thus, it might not be accurate to refer to such prejudice as racism. A wealthy and highly-educated black employer might associate black-sounding names with "gangsta" behavior that he considers embarrassing to black Americans as a whole and thus a tangible threat to the struggle for equality.

For all its misguided nobility, this is still prejudice. However, it reflects an intricate mixture of cultural, socio-economic and racial biases. If one is searching for the essence of anti-Americanism, one has to develop methods sensitive enough to detect even this sort of prejdice, the kind that reflects the best of intentions.

TO BE CONTINUED (0) opinions -- Add your opinion