Myths of American Exceptionalism - MUST READ!

The Power and the Glory
Myths of American exceptionalism

Howard Zinn

The notion of American exceptionalism—that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary—is not new. It started as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony when Governor John Winthrop uttered the words that centuries later would be quoted by Ronald Reagan. Winthrop called the Massachusetts Bay Colony a “city upon a hill.” Reagan embellished a little, calling it a “shining city on a hill.”

The idea of a city on a hill is heartwarming. It suggests what George Bush has spoken of: that the United States is a beacon of liberty and democracy. People can look to us and learn from and emulate us. ...

(excerpt)

Full article:
http://bostonreview.net/BR30.3/zinn.html

This needs to be discussed.....desperately:

Bush’s national-security strategy and its bold statement that the United States is uniquely responsible for peace and democracy in the world has been shocking to many Americans.

I honestly don't believe that the majority of Americans would agree that the United States "...is uniquely responsible for peace and democracy int the world..." The contention that we are thus and that "pre-emptive war" is a legitimate means of securing it has NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF POLITICAL DEBATE.

In no election; 2000 or 2004 has the public been asked to make the selection of a President a referendum on this policy. We' ve just LET it happen.

It needs to be debated.

It needs to be out in the open.

It needs to be exposed for the lunacy that it is.

I don't know how they would articulate it, but I think that a majority of Americans would argue that the United States has a special mission among the nations of the world. How they would articulate that mission, and what that mission requires us to do would change from person to person.

The city on the hill metaphor can lead us to arrogance and pride, but it could also inspire us to do better and act less like boneheads. In theory anyway.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

is the over-riding theme of the 'city on the hill'. Manifest Destiny springs forth from this paradigm. A guess would be that half the population of this country believes it's their right to live in the 'city on the hill'. Even if it takes climbing over the backs of those less able to make the trek from lower to higher.

I'm just saying the myth can have positive effects as well.

You have to have a vision of what American can become and you have to be able to articulate how to get there. Starting with "You basically suck, America" isn't, in my opinion, the best way to get there.

Bryant

Starting with "You basically suck, America" isn't, in my opinion, the best way to get there.

I like to compare a wholesale belief in the myth of American exceptionalism to the behavior of an alcoholic or drug addict. The first step toward overcoming such problems is always ADMITTING THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. Then, further along in the 12-step program is MAKING AMENDS.

America does neither of these. We don't admit that the myth of exceptionalism and the ways it is put into practice is a problem. We don't admit that while we talk of democracy and self-determination, we unerringly come down on the side of our narrow economic self-interest -- more often than not by supporting despotic regimes throughout the developing world. We can't face the fact that a good part of the world hates our foreign policy because it's just so damned hypocritical.

Until these basic truths are uncovered, faced head-on, and truly addressed, nothing will change. All the well-wishing in the world won't change that. The very foundation of our country is based upon the ideas of the Moderate Enlightenment and the practice of conquest -- two very contradictory ideals.

Until America is completely humiliated somehow.

The only way that hubris among the masses is overcome is through humiliation.

Well, I guess one way of looking at things is that the campaign in Iraq certainly seems to be both currently humiliating the US, and also possibly leading to several more humiliations down the line. I don't relish the idea, but I try to remain optimistic about what might be done in the aftermath of such events unfolding.

The two party system lets them off the hook. The Mistakes and the Humiliation will turn out to be Bush's fault for the most part. Not Americas. Or not my America's fautl anyway.

Oh some people will feel personally responsible for voting for him (a small part, it seems most of his supporters are determined to see success whether it is there or not).

It's in rather short supplies these days.

There will always be a minority who realize that the fault of everything we are seeing unfold right now lies with America, with the belief in American exceptionalism, with our tacit approval for dirty deeds done to maintain our comfortable lifestyles, and that Bush is just a manifestation of this disease, not the disease itself.

Maybe people will listen, maybe we'll continue to be little more than voices in the wilderness. I'm going to try for the former, even if the latter ends up being the reality.

... and on and on and on throughout history. People who benefit from the imperial centers in which they reside have ALWAYS seen their homeland as having a "special mission among the nations of the world".

The truth of the matter, however, is that such belief is almost pure bullshit. It is simply a rationalization for them to maintain a position of relative privilege over others through the projection of power that makes exploitation inevitable -- whether that exploitation be of people or natural resources or a combination of the two.

The city on the hill metaphor can lead us to arrogance and pride, but it could also inspire us to do better and act less like boneheads. In theory anyway.

Yeah, and communism is a great system in theory too -- but we've all seen what the results of it being put into full practice have been....

Q: "If you meet the Buddha on your path, what should you do?"
A: "Kill him."

(We are each our own Buddha.)

We are ethically obliged to follow our own Path ... and recognize the liberty of others to follow theirs. We humans repeatedly make two errors, both individually and collectively: (1) subordinate our will to another's, and (2) impose our will over another's.

We, individually and collectively, serve both our selves and others best by modeling that behavior the principles underlying which we would have all others subscribe and behave accordingly. (That's a rather clumsy reiteration of Kant's Categorical Imperative.)

And imposing the change, as has too often been the case with American foreigy policy. Evil has been described as something that starts out with a good idea but then went too far. The idea of America as a beacon can only be actualized in its truest sense when we start living our values instead of using them as an excuse to kill, rape, pillage, and destroyed wantonly. The devil is not in the concept, but in the details.

...At least as serious candidates.

It seems that one of the functions of the major political parties is to weed out candidates that would question the Imperial perogative of the United States.

For as long as I can remember, by the time the ballots are handed to voters, the choices boil down to 'Imperialist' vs 'Imperialist Lite'.

Since WWII, the existence of the American Empire has been one of the unquestioned assumptions of American politics.

It's the hyperbole of cheerleaders who're not obliged to take any notice of won-loss records or, in any way whatsoever, actually contribute to the performance of their 'team.'

It's the 'born-again' myth -- or the 'chosen people' myth -- the notion, devoid of humility, that some superior privilege or entitlement exists without the nuisance of actually having to perform "good works" or correct erroneous behavior.

It's the same kind of brain-dead 'thinking' that allowed Kings and Emperors to enslave their fellow human beings, confiscating the products of their labors and terminating their very lives, all due to some mythical "God-given" power.

This is the inherent evil of conservatism ... the corruption of government to grant entitlements: the coercive power of the state to confiscate the wealth created by labor and transfer it to the entitled "owner." It's the very basis of slavery. It's Human Rights and Liberties for sale to only the highest bidders (under some presumption of scarcity).

Such corrupt mythologies are the very antithesis of justice.

I couldn't have articulated this nearly as well myself, so I'll just nod my head in agreement.

:yourock:

actually comes from the Bible.

Matthew 5:14 (New International Version)

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden."

Both Winthrop and Reagan, I assume, were using intentional biblical allusion in saying this.

So while the concept is pure, the phrase as uttered by both of these people has a double meaning that might trouble some.

ergo - The City on a Hill is meant by them to be a Christian City on a Hill.

I think in some sense that is why American Exceptionalism is a tough sell in the world. It is undercut by the beleif of many who support it that teaching our ideals means others must accept our ideals because they are Christian and American and not because they are simply worthy ideals.

It's not about subordination! It's about not being hidden and acting openly ... as a model.

Was Iran/Contra "on a hill" or hidden?? Did Reagan model a belief or hide his administration's behavior?

Therein lies the hypocrisy and corruption.

That's the second time on this thread you said something I can't improve upon.

Did you eat an extra bowl of Wheaties this morning, or something?

As one of the more articulate DUers, your GMTA-ism is truly appreciated.
As for me, well, even a blind chipmunk turns up an acorn once in a while. :silly:

Some core philisophical/psychological attributes of conservatism seem to at the forefront in today's issues-of-note. Conservatism is the defense of privilege, entitlement, and institutionalism. Conservatism is about imposing institutional beliefs, not about forming individual beliefs. Conservatism eschews progress and evolution, preferring regression and status quo. Conservatism is about conforming, not informing.

Besides, I do oat brans instead of wheat brans. :dunce:

Cheerio! :hi:

Just to clarify.

The concept of being a City on a Hill, as proposed in the bible is exactly, as you say, the concept of being a model for others to emulate, if they so choose (at least that is how I read it).

Reagan did things both covertly and overtly, presumably to promote the idea of American Exceptional-ism. For example, my point was that the City on a Hill statement, in and of itself had covert intentions because it subjugated the original meaning to the belief that only the Christian American ideal was acceptable. Or only America could serve as the City on a Hill.

Once that ideal takes hold, then anything is possible, because the end, a world living by the Christian ideal, justifies the means to achieve that ideal, including acting covertly and corruptly.

In other words a hypocrisy that refuses to recognize it's hypocrisy because it believes it is done for the greater good.

That's all I was suggesting.

while you're there. There are also archives.

:kick: