One of these quotes was written by me – in framing up a straw man, said some critics. The other – wasn’t.
Ultimately, a society is judged, not by it’s tag lines or its famous quotes or its declarations of freedom and equality. History judges a society by its behavior, its civility and its morality. How will history judge us? Will history look only at the words in our Constitution or the endearinig poem engraved on our lady of liberty? Will history talk about Truth, Justice, and the American Way and leave it at that? Will it call the US a bastion of world freedom and say no more? I think not.
An accurate history of the US will ultimately include its pervasive corporate and political corruption, its greed, its rampant consumption and waste of natural resources, its unquenchable thirst for drugs and its lust for power and position. It will include its racism and its assumption of being better than anyone else. It will include the increasing plight and numbers of the poor and their desperate struggles to survive. It will include the increasing level of violence and the startlingly cruel methods people use to inflict it upon each other. And it will include the state’s inability and unwillingness to control it.
or
…founded in genocide and theft, made wealthy on slave labor and mercantilist expropriation, to be a destroyer of minorities, women, the environment and ultimately … argue, itself.
…answer below the fold.The first is a quote from this post by expatbrian at The Impolitic; the second a quote from this post by me at Armed Liberal.
Just sayin’. I know, I know – it’s just some blogger, it doesn’t mean anything, bla bla bla. But the rhetoric was so pitch perfect I couldn’t help but share.
AL,
Great demo of the “out of context syndrome” today’s MSM (the dinosaur of tomorrow)practices.
MSM includes right leaning as well as left cheerleading outlets.
Mike
Mike – enlighten me please – what in the cited post changes the clear meaning of the quoted text? Quotes, please…
A.L.
Speaking as a historian when the last hundred years are described a hundred years from now Historians will rely heavily on Newpaper articles and TV stories. Because they know how things turned out they will concentrate on those events which bring about the future 100 years from now. The theme will be the fall of Christianity and the rise of the Caliphate and how it happened.
A thousand years from now when nothing that happened in the 20th Century matters, someone will write a PhD thesis on the Influence of Amy Winehouse on 32nd Century music.
History doesn’t judge – it rewrites the past to justify the present.
respect the good, hate the evil.God is watching.
A.L., a small point here: the quote you provided states that an accurate history will “include” the subsequent list of sins. I think the word “include” needs to be emphasized and it also needs to be pointed out that “include” does not imply the list is a totality. The writer is clearly saying that IN ADDITION to the list of things we find good about ourselves, we should ALSO look at the less attractive side of our way of life.
Your self-quote, however, implies than anyone, such as my self, who might point this out sees ONLY the darker side, and believes ONLY the darker side is to be weighed when passing judgement. In presenting it in this manner, I believe, you are being unfair.
You say you find hollow the claims of love of country of those who admit the existence of the darker side of our way of life. One could easily turn that around and find hollow your own claims of yeah, I know bad things happen and all, but we should focus and emphasize are ability to admit it and not really dwell on the bad things themselves. Your approach sounds to me like someone who really doesn’t want to let go of a belief in exceptionalism. I think the author of the first quote is saying that exceptionalism is something we really need to get free of, if we are to make honest jugdements.
If we do not dwell to some extent on why we are bad, there would never be a call or drive to improve. Creating a mythology of past glories that ignore the not-so-glorious is a bad start toward honest judgement. How we see ourselves has a significant effect on what we decide to do. If we eliminate all the bad acts from consideration before we judge ourselves, we might then come to a conclusion about ourselves that supports an exceptionalist view. And that could then lead us to believe that we get to live by a different set of laws and moral standards than others. Or no?
mark, I have no intention of letting go of exceptionalism; the simple fact is that our system works – well for us, and for longer than any comparable system.
I think you’re right that the grace note of ‘includes’ is a hook to counter my argument, but I’d respond by saying that yeah, Obama is a great guy, but understanding him must include the fact that he made real estate deals with a corrupt Middle eastern real estate developer, goes to a black nationalist church whose founder is anti-Semitic, and employs key staffers from Louis Farrakhan’s Muslim cult. What kind of picture of Obama is that? – even if true, it’s massively incomplete and slanted.
A.L.
pervasive…corruption
rampant consumption
lust for power
unquenchable thirst
increasing plight and numbers
startlingly cruel
state’s inability and unwillingness to control it.
Sorry mark. Check out the use of adjectives there. This is no ‘I love my country warts and all speech’. This is no ‘We have flaws and need to work on them’.
When you use constructive criticism you do not view flaws as being innate and unstoppable. Pervasive, rampant, unquenchable, unwilling?
By it’s very nature, the acknowledgment of errors with an intent to stop them believes that those errors are reversible. Which hardly makes the errors innate, unbeatable, or implies that no one cares.
This is just plain hatred.
Also, what the heck is wrong with exceptionalism? All the arguments I ever hear against it assume either that the rest of the world is composed of glass flowers who’ll go to pieces (to pieces, you hear?) if some mean American comes along and says he thinks his country is the best in the world; or it assumes that America is full of evil, evil people just itching for the excuse that being the best in the world brings to commit dastardly acts upon dem furriners.
Or are we going with my favorite, nations conduct wars therefore nationalism causes wars logical inanity?
A.L., your argument that the view under discussion is incomplete and, thus, slanted would be more successful if it were the dominant–or even–common view. But since it is a view that is promoted principally as a corrective to the dominant and common view, and is offered as the missing segment of the whole picture, your argument falls kind of flat, for me.
I also find fault in your first statement, that our system works well for us and longer than any others. Who, exactly is us? You and me, yeah sure. It’s great for us and always has been. But there are large segments of society—our society–for whom the system doesn’t work quite so well, and certainly, to the extent that it does work for them at all, has been doing so for a very very short period of time. Also, there are plenty of other systems that work well for others and that have been in effect for quite awhile, though it is possible that you are referring to Western Civ, and not just the U.S. I would agree that Western Civ has a pretty good track record compared to anything else, and I’m all for keeping it going. But American exceptionalism….I can’t buy that. To me that is an extremely dangerous creed. It could only lead to our ruin.
mark – cranking on work right now and your comment deserves a thoughtful and complete response…maybe tomorrow?
A.L.
Treefrog, my apologies. I wasn’t clear. I never intended to make the claim that the negative account of ourselves is meant to be part of a “loveable with warts” “let’s improve” or “constructive criticism” thesis. I think it came across that way because I was trying to counter some of AL’s claims specific to those features.
I simply believe that the negative account has to be included in the overall picture when making a judgement, if that judgement wants to make any claims of validity. I believe that exceptionalism is misguided because a) it is based upon an incomplete account and is not justified by an honest assessment; 2) it leads to justification of actions that would otherwise be viewed as illegitimate, and indeed, when or if taken by others, would be denounced as such. Exceptionalism is the argument that since America is morally superior to other nations, anything that advances Americas interests, or expands its economic or political hegemony over other nations or regions cannot be viewed in the same light as similar actions taken by other–and by definition, morally inferior–nations. In other words, we are not subject to the same laws as others because we are better. I believe I am doing justice to the beliefs of those who argue in favor of American exceptionalism. Maybe not. Maybe they would present it in a different way, but that is how I understand it.
A.L., I look forward to it.
I simply believe that the negative account has to be included in the overall picture when making a judgement,
Agreed, but there is a line between a fair and complete accounting and the kind of negatively obsessive hysteria the original writer included. The country the original writer described is, regardless of any possible positive contributions, beyond saving.
To consider your points on exceptionalism:
a) it is based upon an incomplete account and is not justified by an honest assessment;
Believing something is the best is not the same as believing something is perfect.
Also, I have a problem with the assumption that everyone must be a judge of their nation. Judges, like referees, should be neutral, and if every citizen of our nation is neutral towards it, who then is playing on our side (to scramble the metaphors)?
I, for one, have no intention of ever being neutral towards the United States because I am an American citizen. I have a duty towards the United States that precludes being neutral.
This in no way precludes me from having a complete understanding of US history. See the next point.
2) it leads to justification of actions that would otherwise be viewed as illegitimate, and indeed, when or if taken by others, would be denounced as such.
This is the point I honestly don’t understand. Is this supposed to be the argument that because I’m the best violinist on the planet I can feel free to misplay half my notes at every concert?
This seems to be a confusion with the utopianist, anything we do is good because we’re building the perfect future meme. Which is ironically is one of the things exceptionalism PROTECTS AGAINST.
We’re the best right now. We have no infinitely perfect future that outweighs all possible current evils. To stay the best means continuing to be the best.
Being the leader is a constant test and challenge, not a license to slack off.
As for the rest, it comes down to the corny cliche that ‘With great power comes great responsibility’.
We have a moral duty to aid the good and inhibit the evil. The exceptionalist does not believe we have a blank check to do anything. It’s simply that as the most powerful member of the free world, we have a duty to lead that cause.
Perhaps you see the irony of bristling at the supposed contention that anyone who says anything slightly negative about the US wants us to sit in a dark room, wearing a hair shirt, and banging our heads on the wall chanting ‘US …evil…we hates it’ over and over; then you turn around and accuse anyone of believing that the US is the leader of the free world of believing that simply as an excuse to go ride roughshod over the entire world?
Treefrog, I think there is a small misunderstanding here. I am using the term “American Exceptionalism” to refer to a particular doctrine that others have espoused. Your quibble with what the concept does or does not entail or imply is with them, not with me. I don’t believe in the concept at all. I’m not generally a big fan of Wikipedia, however, there is a useful broad account of the doctrine there.
As far as judging nations is concerned, the original quote in the post was about how history judges. I introduced the notion that how we see ourselves determines –in part — our future actions. You say at one point that “I have a problem with the assumption that everyone must be a judge of their nation. ” and yet, later on, you say that “We’re the best right now….” which is clearly a judgement, so you can’t have too much of a problem. Nor do I think you should have. I would venture to say it is impossible not to make a judgement of one’s own nation. All I am arguing is that such judgements should be opened-eyed, honest and without agenda…and, weighing both positive and negative in appropriate measure. To disregard the negative aspects of our history or of our present structures, or to deny their significance, will lead to misleading judgement, e.g., that we are the best.
I appreciate the interest in the post and the subject. To me, this is what blogging is all about. Stimulating debate, arguing the issues, reaching sound conclusions.
Mark, I agree with your comments in #6.
If you think I hate the US, you are wrong. I love the US. Enlisted to fight for it. Did so.
I hate the path it is on and what it is becoming. If you lived outside the US, got that perspective, listened to what the rest of the world thinks, you would find that they share that view.
Do I think it can be saved before its economy crumbles? Maybe, but not as long as the bulk of its people are more interested in watching American Idol, which new SUV to buy, who’s gonna win the superbowl or what the fuck Brittany Spears is up to.
I voted, even from 8,000 miles away. About half of eligible Americans did not.
#3 sol vason:
Your point is well taken. But do you actually think that there is going to be any writing of history books in 100 years’ time, to say nothing of 1100?
The history of the last 100 years or so, maybe longer, is that of increasing amounts of destructiveness being available to decreasing numbers of people. The limit, that of apocalypse being in the hands of a single individual, is not far off.
To make this more concrete: In maybe 30 years’ time, it will be possible for a single deranged psychopath to have in his hands the means to destroy humanity and possibly all life on Earth. The means doesn’t matter, but possibly it will be tailored bugs; maybe “grey goo” replicating nanoassemblers; possibly something we don’t yet know, even in theory, how to do. “How” doesn’t matter. What does matter is that there are plenty of people around (most of them adherents to one religion) who want not only to have that power, but to use it. They need to be stopped. Stopped hard, and permanently.