Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
I'm not sure exactly when the battle over "Americanism" started, but I would probably check the period in history between the U.S. Civil War and our entry into World War I, since that's when a lot of our modern ideals about patriotism and national unity were formulated. This was also a time when American culture (yes, there is one) was starting to come into its own and establish its own identity and distinction in the world. Geopolitically, we reached our peak of expansionism and "Manifest Destiny" (in our foolish attempt to emulate European imperialism), so by the time World War I broke out, we shifted to equating Americanism with "making the world safe for democracy," as if that's somehow our God-given mission in the world. Some might argue that our push towards global democracy may have been merely a mask to cover further expansionism and imperialism, and that's also where some of the arguments have come in.
The only disagreement I have is that I believe we are NOW at our peak of expansionism. Not only by military incursions but by trade agreements and 'mutual' defense umbrellas. Our new world "influence" grew out of the fall of the Soviet Union empire. George HW Bush called it "the new world order."
I agree with you, although I was mainly referring to our actual physical expansionism, when we were actually taking and annexing territory and adding it to our own. Other countries had been doing the same thing around the world, until the signing of the Kellogg-Briand Pact in the 1920s which outlawed aggressive invasion for the purpose of conquering and territorial annexation. Because of this, we really couldn't expand any further, not overtly anyway.
However, I'm not sure that our new world influence is any greater today than it was at the end of World War II. I think that we were in a far more powerful and influential position in the world at that time than we are now. Our main focus at that time was to maintain the hegemony of the West which had already been established, defending it against those who might threaten it, whether from Germany, Russia, Japan, China, or wherever. The actual expansionism had already taken place, while our role had been to maintain the status quo of Western hegemony and contain the spread of Communism (or anything else that might threaten Western hegemony).
In other words, we were trying to keep what we already had. We didn't need to expand any further, because we already had most of everything anyway.
In some ways, the fall of the Soviet Union may have actually weakened us further, since we no longer had a big bad "enemy" to justify mobilizing the nation and an entire global alliance. Our pretexts for our recent military incursions have been easily unraveled and torn apart both within the US and by the world community. The rest of the world doesn't seem as willing to buy our bullshit as they once did. I would recognize this as a weakening of US influence, indicating that we may have passed our peak of expansionism and influence some time ago.
Even Bush's "New World Order" has been met with a lot of cynicism.
quote:
quote:
Reading some of the other comments in this thread which suggest that America has no culture or that we're not really a country, I would suggest that some of those comments are also a consequence of the battle over "Americanism" within America. As our country became bigger and more powerful, I think many of us got delusions of grandeur, comparing us to the Roman Empire and viewing "America" has having some deeper meaning and richer significance, as if it's some sort of symbol or religion.
A secular religion. We call it American Exceptionalism.
Makes sense. I'm not sure that I entirely agree with the usage of the term "exceptionalism," since I don't know if that's completely accurate. I understand the concept, although I don't know if "exceptional" is what I would call it.
Although I do find I run into a lot of my fellow Americans who have a somewhat "imperial" consciousness and outlook concerning our role in the world. They look at the world as "ours." Even going back to a time when they said that Truman "gave away" China and Eastern Europe, as if it was ours to trade and give away in the first place. Our military incursions are often considered obligatory, something that "we have to do," as if we, as a nation, have no choice in the matter.
But our "empire" seems to be crumbling before us, and a lot of Americans don't like it.
|
RE: In the 21st century I want to know... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread