By Heather Horn on June 11, 2010 10:10am
"U.S. Fury at BP Stirs Backlash Among British," reads the New York Times headline. What sort of backlash? Everyone from the mayor of London (a favorite of the Wire's for other reasons) to British columnists seems pretty irritated. They feel that anti-BP rhetoric in U.S. media and among American politicians is not only hurting a company many Brits have invested in, but is beginning to take on a jingoistic tone. Many were also unhappy to hear President Obama refer to BP as "British Petroleum," a name the company had given up. Here's the roundup of irritated British opinion.
Seriously? If this is true, I'm at a complete loss. It's like the stupid American announcement years back to call french fries "Freedom Fries"(a suggestion most Americans ignored, thankfully). EVEN the President's use of the historical name "British Petroleum" has nothing to do with anti-british sentiment, and everything to do with the president wanting to subtly remind the American people that he can't just nationalize a company which isn't in the first place an American company. (OK, I have no proof of that, but it makes way more sense then the assumption of anti British sentiment.) Other than that - I'm all for roundly, firmly, loudly criticizing BP, and at a complete loss of understanding why the British folks would ask us, who are losing an entire ecosystem, to be less strident in our criticism.
British Ex Islers - is this true? Or is this nonsensical punditry looking for a story where one isn't?
Edited by QueenTiye, 11 June 2010 - 10:59 AM.