The Paradoxes of American Nationalism (somewhat long but I found it interesting)

[DinoDoc]

Nearly two years after the horrific terrorist attacks on the United States, international public opinion has shifted from heartfelt sympathy for Americans and their country to undisguised antipathy. The immediate catalyst for this shift is the United States’ hard-line policy toward and subsequent war with Iraq. Yet today’s strident anti-Americanism represents much more than a wimpy reaction to U.S. resolve or generic fears of a hegemon running amok. Rather, the growing unease with the United States should be seen as a powerful global backlash against the spirit of American nationalism that shapes and animates U.S. foreign policy.

Any examination of the deeper sources of anti-Americanism should start with an introspective look at American nationalism. But in the United States, this exercise, which hints at serious flaws in the nation’s character, generates little enthusiasm. Moreover, coming to terms with today’s growing animosity toward the United States is intellectually contentious because of the two paradoxes of American nationalism: First, although the United States is a highly nationalistic country, it genuinely does not see itself as such. Second, despite the high level of nationalism in American society, U.S. policymakers have a remarkably poor appreciation of the power of nationalism in other societies and have demonstrated neither skill nor sensitivity in dealing with its manifestations abroad.


BLIND TO ONE’S VIRTUE

Nationalism is a dirty word in the United States, viewed with disdain and associated with Old World parochialism and imagined supremacy. Yet those who discount the idea of American nationalism may readily admit that Americans, as a whole, are extremely patriotic. When pushed to explain the difference between patriotism and nationalism, those same skeptics might concede, reluctantly, that there is a distinction, but no real difference. Political scientists have labored to prove such a difference, equating patriotism with allegiance to one’s country and defining nationalism as sentiments of ethno-national superiority. In reality, however, the psychological and behavioral manifestations of nationalism and patriotism are indistinguishable, as is the impact of such sentiments on policy.

Polling organizations routinely find that Americans display the highest degree of national pride among Western democracies. Researchers at the University of Chicago reported that before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 90 percent of the Americans surveyed agreed with the statement “I would rather be a citizen of America than of any other country in the world”; 38 percent endorsed the view that “The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Americans.” (After the terrorist attacks, 97 and 49 percent, respectively, agreed with the same statements.) The World Values Survey reported similar results, with more than 70 percent of those surveyed declaring themselves “very proud” to be Americans. By comparison, the same survey revealed that less than half of the people in other Western democracies—including France, Italy, Denmark, Great Britain, and the Netherlands—felt “very proud” of their nationalities.

Americans not only take enormous pride in their values but also regard them as universally applicable. According to the Pew Global Attitudes survey, 79 percent of the Americans polled agreed that “It’s good that American ideas and customs are spreading around the world”; 70 percent said they “like American ideas about democracy.” These views, however, are not widely shared, even in Western Europe, another bastion of liberalism and democracy. Pew found that, among the Western European countries surveyed, less than 40 percent endorse the spread of American ideas and customs, and less than 50 percent like American ideas about democracy.

Such firmly held beliefs in the superiority of American political values and institutions readily find expression in American social, cultural, and political practices. It is almost impossible to miss them: the daily ritual of the Pledge of Allegiance in the nation’s schools, the customary performance of the national anthem before sporting events, and the ubiquitous American flags. And in the United States, as in other countries, nationalist sentiments inevitably infuse politics. Candidates rely on hot-button issues such as flag burning and national security to attack their opponents as unpatriotic and worse.

Why does a highly nationalistic society consistently view itself as anything but? The source of this paradox lies in the forces that sustain nationalism in the United States. Achievements in science and technology, military strength, economic wealth, and unrivaled global political influence can no doubt generate strong national pride. But what makes American nationalism truly exceptional are the many ways in which it is naturally expressed in daily life.

One of the most powerful wellsprings of American nationalism is civic voluntarism—the willingness of ordinary citizens to contribute to the public good, either through individual initiatives or civic associations. Outside observers, starting with the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in the early 19th century, have never ceased to be amazed by this font of American dynamism. “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations,” noted Tocqueville, who credited Americans for relying on themselves, instead of government, to solve society’s problems.

The same grass-roots activism that animates the country’s social life also makes American nationalism vibrant and alluring, for most of the institutions and practices that promote and sustain American nationalism are civic, not political; the rituals are voluntary rather than imposed; and the values inculcated are willingly embraced, not artificially indoctrinated. Elsewhere in the world, the state plays an indispensable role in promoting nationalism, which is frequently a product of political manipulation by elites and consequently has a manufactured quality to it. But in the United States, although individual politicians often try to exploit nationalism for political gains, the state is conspicuously absent. For instance, no U.S. federal laws mandate reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, require singing the national anthem at sporting events, or enforce flying the flag on private buildings.

The history of the pledge is an exquisite example of the United States’ unique take on nationalism. Francis Bellamy, a socialist Baptist minister, wrote the original text in 1892; three major American civic associations (the National Education Association, the American Legion, and the Daughters of the American Revolution) instituted, refined, and expanded the ceremony of reciting it. The federal government was late getting into the game. Congress didn’t officially endorse the pledge until 1942, and it didn’t tamper with the language until 1954, when Congress inserted the phrase “under God” after being pressured by a religious organization, the Knights of Columbus.

Indeed, any blunt attempt to use the power of the state to institutionalize U.S. nationalism has been met with strong resistance because of popular suspicion that the government may be encroaching on Americans’ individual liberties. In the 1930s, the Jehovah’s Witnesses mounted a legal challenge when some school boards tried to make the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory, arguing that the pledge compelled children to worship graven images. The flag-burning amendment has failed twice in the U.S. Congress during the last eight years.

In the United States, promoting nationalism is a private enterprise. In other societies, especially those ruled by authoritarian regimes, the state deploys its resources, from government-controlled media to the police, to propagate “patriotic values.” The celebration of national days in such countries features huge government-orchestrated parades that showcase crack troops and the latest weaponry. (The huge military parade held in Beijing in 1999 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of China allegedly cost hundreds of millions of dollars.) Yet despite its awesome high-tech arsenal, such orgiastic displays of state-sponsored nationalism are notably absent on Independence Day in the United States. Of course, Americans hold parades and watch fireworks on the Fourth of July, but those events are largely organized by civic associations and partly paid for by local business groups.

Herein lies the secret of the vitality and durability of American nationalism: The dominance of civic voluntarism—and not state coercion—has made nationalist sentiments more genuine, attractive, and legitimate to the general public. These expressions of American nationalism have become so commonplace that they are virtually imperceptible, except to outsiders.


A POLITICAL CREED

American nationalism is hidden in plain sight. But even if Americans saw it, they wouldn’t recognize it as nationalism. That’s because American nationalism is a different breed from its foreign cousins and exhibits three unique characteristics.

First, American nationalism is based on political ideals, not those of cultural or ethnic superiority. That conception is entirely fitting for a society that still sees itself as a cultural and ethnic melting pot. As President George W. Bush said in his Fourth of July speech last year: “There is no American race; there’s only an American creed.” And in American eyes, the superiority of that creed is self-evident. American political institutions and ideals, coupled with the practical achievements attributed to them, have firmly convinced Americans that their values ought to be universal. Conversely, when Americans are threatened, they see attacks on them as primarily attacks on their values. Consider how American elites and the public interpreted the September 11 terrorist attacks. Most readily embraced the notion that the attacks embodied an assault on U.S. democratic freedoms and institutions.

Second, American nationalism is triumphant rather than aggrieved. In most societies, nationalism is fueled by past grievances caused by external powers. Countries once subjected to colonial rule, such as India and Egypt, are among the most nationalistic societies. But American nationalism is the polar opposite of such aggrieved nationalism. American nationalism derives its meaning from victories in peace and war since the country’s founding. Triumphant nationalists celebrate the positive and have little empathy for the whining of aggrieved nationalists whose formative experience consisted of a succession of national humiliations and defeats.

Finally, American nationalism is forward looking, while nationalism in most other countries is the reverse. Those who believe in the superiority of American values and institutions do not dwell on their historical glories (though such glories constitute the core of American national identity). Instead, they look forward to even better times ahead, not just at home but also abroad. This dynamism imbues American nationalism with a missionary spirit and a short collective memory. Unavoidably, such forward-looking and universalistic perspectives clash with the backward-looking and particularistic perspectives of ethno-nationalism in other countries. Haunted by memories of Western military invasions since the time of the Crusades, the Middle East cannot help but look with suspicion upon U.S. plans to “liberate” the Iraqi people. In the case of China, U.S. support for Taiwan, which the Chinese government and people alike regard as a breakaway province, is the most contentious issue in bilateral relations. The loss of Taiwan—whether to the Japanese in 1895 or to the nationalists in 1949—has long symbolized national weakness and humiliation.

INNOCENTS ABROAD

The unique characteristics of American nationalism explain why one of the most nationalist countries in the world is so inept at dealing with nationalism abroad. The best example of this second paradox of American nationalism is the Vietnam War. The combination of the United States’ universalistic political values (in this case, anticommunism), triumphalist beliefs in U.S. power, and short national memory led to a disastrous policy that clashed with the nationalism of the Vietnamese, a people whose national experience was defined by resistance against foreign domination (the Chinese and the French) and whose overriding goal was independence and unity, not the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.

In its dealings with several other highly nationalistic societies, the United States has paid little attention to the role nationalism played in legitimizing and sustaining those regimes the country regarded as hostile. U.S. policy toward these nations has either disregarded strong nationalist sentiments (as in the Philippines and Mexico) or consistently allowed the ideological, free-market bias of American nationalism to exaggerate the antagonism of communist ideologies championed by rival governments (as in China and Cuba). Former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s brand of postcolonial Arab nationalism, which rejected a strategic alliance with either the U.S.-led West or the Soviet camp, baffled Washington officials, who could not conceive of any country remaining neutral in the struggle against communist expansionism. Echoes of that mind-set are heard today in the United States’ “you’re either with us or against us” ultimatum in the war against terrorism.

This ongoing inability to deal with nationalism abroad has three immediate consequences. The first, and relatively minor, is the high level of resentment that U.S. insensitivity generates, both among foreign governments and their people. The second, and definitely more serious, is that such insensitive policies tend to backfire on the United States, especially when it tries to undermine hostile regimes abroad. After all, nationalism is one of the few crude ideologies that can rival the power of democratic liberalism. Look, for example, at the unfolding nuclear drama on the Korean peninsula. The rising nationalism of South Korea’s younger generation—which sees its troublesome neighbor to the north as kin, not monsters—hasn’t yet figured in Washington’s calculations concerning Pyongyang’s brinkmanship. In these cases, as in previous similar instances, U.S. policies frequently have the perverse effects of alienating people in allied countries and driving them to support the very regimes targeted by U.S. policy.

Finally, given the nationalism that animates U.S. policies, American behavior abroad inevitably appears hypocritical to others. This hypocrisy is especially glaring when the United States undermines global institutions in the name of defending American sovereignty (such as in the cases of the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). The rejection of such multilateral agreements may score points at home, but non-Americans have difficulty reconciling the universalistic rhetoric and ideals Americans espouse with the parochial national interests the U.S. government appears determined to pursue abroad. Over time, such behavior can erode the United States’ international credibility and legitimacy.

If American society had been less insulated from the rest of the world by geography and distance, these conflicting perspectives on nationalism might be less severe. To be sure, physical insularity has not diminished Americans’ belief in the universalistic appeals of their political ideas. The nation was founded on the principle that all people (not just Americans) are endowed with “certain inalienable rights.” That sentiment has been passed down through successive generations—from former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vision of a world based upon “four freedoms” to President George W. Bush’s “non-negotiable demands of human dignity.”

But the United States’ relative isolation, which unavoidably leads to inadequate knowledge about other countries, has created a huge communications barrier between Americans and other societies. According to a recent survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, only 22 percent of Americans have traveled to another country in the last five years, compared with 66 percent of Canadians, 73 percent of Britons, 60 percent of the French, and 77 percent of Germans. Lack of direct contact with foreign societies has not been offset by the information revolution. In the years leading up to September 11, 2001, only 30 percent of Americans claimed to be “very interested” in “news about other countries.” Even after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, average Americans did not sustain a strong interest in international affairs. According to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center in early 2002, only about 26 percent of the Americans surveyed said they were following foreign news “very closely,” and 45 percent of Americans said that international events did not affect them.

An amalgam of political idealism, national pride, and relative insularity, American nationalism evokes mixed feelings abroad. Many admire its idealism, universalism, and optimism and recognize the indispensability of American power and leadership to peace and prosperity around the world. Others reject American nationalism as merely the expression of an overbearing, self-righteous, and misguided bully. In ordinary times, such international ambivalence produces little more than idle chatter. But when American nationalism drives the country’s foreign policy, it galvanizes broad-based anti-Americanism. And at such times, it becomes impossible to ignore the inconsistencies and tensions within American nationalism—or the harm they inflict on the United States’ legitimacy abroad.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13631

[The Templar]

I read that article in FP (I'm a subscriber). The author conflates US forward-looking attitude with nationalism. To see US values as superior is to hope that the US itself is eventually transcended - this precludes nationalism. Such an attitude is best displayed in either leftists who see transnational organizations like the UN and ICC as the future, or right wingers who see trade zones like NAFTA and the WTO as the future. In either case, these organizations will break down national soveriegnty as they either magnify human rights and rule of law on the left or promote trade over national labor and environmental protections on the right.

Nationalism in the US is rather an ugly force that is backwards looking - usually to a golden age before Lincoln, FDR, what-have-you, before emancipation, feminism, the sexual revolution, what have you. Think Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, or any cracker screaming about "southern" (i.e. confederate) heritage. These people usually dislike either the left wing or right wing internationalist path and hate immigration. These are the sorts of crackers who complain about illegal immigration but love cheap lettuce.

[The Vagabond]

An interesting article, DD.

[DinoDoc]

Bump

[FrustratedPoet]

Very good article.

No real comment I can make except that I agree with it.

[Immortal Wombat]

Sounds about right

Second, American nationalism is triumphant rather than aggrieved. In most societies, nationalism is fueled by past grievances caused by external powers. Countries once subjected to colonial rule, such as India and Egypt, are among the most nationalistic societies. But American nationalism is the polar opposite of such aggrieved nationalism. American nationalism derives its meaning from victories in peace and war since the country’s founding. Triumphant nationalists celebrate the positive and have little empathy for the whining of aggrieved nationalists whose formative experience consisted of a succession of national humiliations and defeats.

I would suggest that this "triumphant nationalism" took a bit of a dent and "aggrieved nationalism" a bit of a bump after September 11th, and that helped even less with international relations. But yeah, the article sums it all up very well.

[reds4ever]

'Americans not only take enormous pride in their values but also regard them as universally applicable'

[BeBro]

Quite interesting, but I don´t understand some aspects....

The same grass-roots activism that animates the country’s social life also makes American nationalism vibrant and alluring, for most of the institutions and practices that promote and sustain American nationalism are civic, not political; the rituals are voluntary rather than imposed; and the values inculcated are willingly embraced, not artificially indoctrinated.

This seems to imply that other forms of nationalism were always (or at least mostly) "brought" in to a society by force or brainwashing (carried out by the nationalist elite).

But in many countries nationalism started in a similar way (although I agree that it had more cultural or ethnic roots eg. in Europe). Initially it was thought as a method to free a country from foreign oppression or to unify a country. In Europe it often was opposed to old monarchical rule. In these cases nationalism developed within the society, was seen as progressive, and therefore it found its way to the masses.

The negative views on nationalism are IMO a product of later times when it resulted in (world-) wars and totalitarian rule.

Elsewhere in the world, the state plays an indispensable role in promoting nationalism, which is frequently a product of political manipulation by elites and consequently has a manufactured quality to it. But in the United States, although individual politicians often try to exploit nationalism for political gains, the state is conspicuously absent.

Well, this seems a bit too simple. It sounds as if all those American values come from "the man on the street". Even if the people believe in those values, it seems to me that these values are continouesly reinforced in the political process, and not only by some individual politicians (who exploit them sometimes), but by the political elite in the US. That is not a critique on those values, but I don´t think it makes sense to leave the elite out here.

Because when we speak about core values of the American society it sounds too simplistic to think that the political elite of this society does nothing to promote those core values. One could argue that things like the "Senate" or the "President" (independant from the person itself) including the way they are presented (eg. in the media) are actually symbols of American nationalism itself, because nationalism has a highly emotional dimension.

[Arrian]

Good article.

Templar,

I have to disagree with you re: nationalism in the US being a backward-looking thing. For some, like those you mentioned, yes. But for most, not so much. I think the article is quite accurate in that regard (forward-looking, triumphant, and possessing a very short memory). I'm not arguing it's a good thing, though, either way (well, slightly better than the way you portray it, but still not "good").

-Arrian

[Main_Brain]

interesting read i agree.

[Bereta_Eder]

Actually the bottom line is that the US elite suffers from the "chosen people to save the world syndrome" very similar to Hitler's ideas or any other megalomaniac.

This makes them believe they have the right to justify the means they use to an end thus committing dire crimes, unhindered by moral restrictions.

The main motivation remains serving the national interests but this coupled with the "people in an ideal place to save the world" makes for a very ruthless exercise of its power.

If the US wasn't a superpower their "visions" (pun indented) would be just comical but coupled with their power they are dangerous.


that's an idea, not necessairily my own but up for thoughts.


Didnt read the article, i dont waste time with those but just thought id write something )

[Garth Vader]

Interesting.

I would disagree with this

First, American nationalism is based on political ideals, not those of cultural or ethnic superiority. That conception is entirely fitting for a society that still sees itself as a cultural and ethnic melting pot.

I would say that the US regards it's culture as superior.

[GePap]

I think the article does a good job at showing the insular nature of American society.

I still have some reservations, but I have yet to found a way to voice them.

[Velociryx]

Good find, DD!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Oh, except of course that we're not a Hegemon....Hersh said so.... Why....we're barely a superpower at all, actually....

-=Vel=-

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Arrian
Good article.

Templar,

I have to disagree with you re: nationalism in the US being a backward-looking thing. For some, like those you mentioned, yes. But for most, not so much. I think the article is quite accurate in that regard (forward-looking, triumphant, and possessing a very short memory). I'm not arguing it's a good thing, though, either way (well, slightly better than the way you portray it, but still not "good").

-Arrian

My point was that the FP article stretches the concept of nationalism beyond recognition. FP was definitely onto a phenomenon in American thinking - but to me, that phenomenon is post-nationalistic. US universalism and forward-looking-ness is not 'nationalistic' in any sense that does not do violence to that term.

Think of this as two threads that prevail in cultural experience. The nationalistic thread always looks back to a magical golden age - the revolution, the antebellum south, even the new deal (popular with old people) and sees the present day as a fall from that golden age. Either through excessive government regulation, racial/gender/sexual orientation equality, deregulation (for the new dealers), what have you. This is nationalism in the typical sense.

Most forward thinkers tend to think post-nationally, i.e. they see the need to relax soveriengty (although may use it when faced with the other side's post-nationalism. Again, the left wants to cede power to orgs like the UN or the ICC - orgs based on justice and rule of law. The left tends to go nationalist (in the sense above) to stop right-wing favorites like NAFTA and the WTO gutting labor and enviro regs in the name of trade. Right wingers tend to like these trade organizations as a way to frustrate democratic checks on corporate excess but piss and moan about troops being subject to ICC jurisdiction or the UN limiting (or trying to) the ability to conduct offensive wars.

My point is that the term nationalism should not be extended to encompass the phenomenon FP is exploring. Extending "nationalism", IMO, covers more characteristics of US thought then it reveals. It especially covers the classical nationalism that does exist in the US to a large extent.

[Arrian]

Ok, I see your point. I'm not sure I agree, in that I think you might have too tight a definition of nationalism, but I understand what you're saying.

-Arrian

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, I see your point. I'm not sure I agree, in that I think you might have too tight a definition of nationalism, but I understand what you're saying.

-Arrian

In a way I am because I am relying on a functional explication. Nationalism is something we usually think of as a shared set of characteristics that allow us to identify ourselves as common citizens of a nation. Usually these characteristics are historical - shared historical experience, shared ancestry (eg common ethnicity, race, etc), shared religious and cultural values (although these often conflict, consider the initial suspicion of catholics in the US as people who were loyal to Rome not the US). In this sense, nationalism has to be backwards looking. Of course, Americans rely alot on shared values and historical experience for national identity given our ancestral and religious heterogeny.

However, universalist values do not provide a foundation for nationalism because those values are believed to be universal. The nationalist thread of culture would look backwards perhaps and say that the US first discovered or implemented those values - but would not enshrine those values as unique to the US. Again, this is because the values are universal. The forward thinking thread of US culture tends to see the fulfillment of the universal values via post national institutions.

And DinoDoc, I though conservatives read Foriegn Affairs, not Foriegn Policy.

[MikeH]

Great article. Very true.

[DAVOUT]

At the beginning was the patriotism, the love of the mother country, which is a natural human feeling resulting from another feeling, the belonging; there is a universal desire to love the country you feel you belong to.

The nationalism appears when you start looking for the reasons you have to love your country. From those reasons derives the nationalist theory ; everything should be subordinated to the good of the country, which is fine; and the interests of our country must prevail on any other foreign interest, which could create problems.

The nationalism, contrary to the patriotism, IMHO cannot survive at the individual level without some kind of pressure; when this pressure does not come from the state, as in the US, it is a social pressure coming from the community, and in the US from the society at large. The daily pledge is an example of such pressure, as well as the obvious conformism regarding the flag on private buildings, T-shirt, etc. All this concern the appearance that the society demands from the citizens, although they are many more efficient ways to be useful for ones country.

I believe that most people accepting happily to conform to the behaviour expected by the society are simply patriots. The nationalism cannot be spontaneously developped by the people.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
At the beginning was the patriotism, the love of the mother country, which is a natural human feeling resulting from another feeling, the belonging; there is a universal desire to love the country you feel you belong to.

The nationalism appears when you start looking for the reasons you have to love your country. From those reasons derives the nationalist theory ; everything should be subordinated to the good of the country, which is fine; and the interests of our country must prevail on any other foreign interest, which could create problems.

(...)

I believe that most people accepting happily to conform to the behaviour expected by the society are simply patriots. The nationalism cannot be spontaneously developped by the people.

Oh I think it can - where else should it come from? Even when you have a nationalist elite they must have nationalism from somewhere. And IMO it is absolutely not "a natural human feeling" which begins with patriotism. In the middle ages, there were no national identities, only local identities, and the main identity for medieval Europe, which was religious (Christianity). There are some exceptions where you can speak of national elements, but one can hardly speak of patriotism or even nationalism as ideology or movement in those times.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by BeBro


Oh I think it can - where else should it come from? Even when you have a nationalist elite they must have nationalism from somewhere. And IMO it is absolutely not "a natural human feeling" which begins with patriotism. In the middle ages, there were no national identities, only local identities, and the main identity for medieval Europe, which was religious (Christianity). There are some exceptions where you can speak of national elements, but one can hardly speak of patriotism or even nationalism as ideology or movement in those times.

Yes, and I would say this has to do with finding a common ground among local peoples, but one that also distinguishes them from the other nations. E.g. what do the putative French have that's different from the putative Germans? At least in Europe, my guess would be that nationalism results from the centralization of power in the monarchies and away from the ultimate authority of the church (especially after the reformation) and the local authority of the feudal lords. The question is why should Bob Dirtfarmer Peasant case about the monarch when his life has been dominated by the local Baron. Nationalism cewrtainly comes into play here.

You get symbols like the flag and the national anthem to display the unity. You also get rituals like the pledge of allegiance or afternoon tea for people to participate in this unity and develop a shared identity. Reference to the past - either ancestry or shared historical experience - makes the national identity feel more natural (although in many ways it is artificial).

In the US, for instance, you have the flag, the pledge, and the constitution. You also have various golden age myths (throwing off tyranny in the revolution, Lincoln preserving the union, FDR and the new deal). The US lacks a shared religion or ethnicity, so we substitute the immigrant myth (we are all childern of immigrants) as a shared ancestral experience and a bridge to new comers. Moreover, popular culture tends to mock "blue bloods" or the idea that "Mayflower families" are somehow more American, when in fact deep roots tend to be seen as suspicious or old world.

The South is a little different. There, the golden age is often the antebellum period when everyone knew their proper place. Rootedness and family history is also respected and the immigrant myth is less prominent.

[Master Zen]

Very very good article

I think it hits mostly right on on the spot on US nationalism although I disagree that there are no feeleing of superoriity. Of course there are, and countless historical examples of, cultural during this century, ethnic during the last etc. In that regards I don't see it as any different than other types of Natianlalism.


But then again it alls falls down into a play of words. "Nationalism" is bad. "Patriotism" is good like the article says. In the end I think the fault is with society as a whole, which is really narrow-minded in the sence that the US does play a HUGE double standard in the world, at yet doesn't see so in its own eyes... if people stepped into foreign shoes they would see the US in a greatly different light, but perhaps it's a light they really don't want to see.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by BeBro


Oh I think it can - where else should it come from? Even when you have a nationalist elite they must have nationalism from somewhere. And IMO it is absolutely not "a natural human feeling" which begins with patriotism. In the middle ages, there were no national identities, only local identities, and the main identity for medieval Europe, which was religious (Christianity). There are some exceptions where you can speak of national elements, but one can hardly speak of patriotism or even nationalism as ideology or movement in those times.

I was in the frame of the nation-state of course; in the middle-age, the identity originated primarily in the land, then in the religion, for an individual.

[Spiffor]

Excellent article

Indeed, the belief of the absolute superiority of the American creed over all others is what makes the American considered as nationalists, and I think it is the main reason that makes them widely hated throughout the world.

Once the Americans will learn to respect other cultures rather than trying to spread their creed worldwide, I think there will be many, many less problems wrt antimaricanism.

The utter blindness of the Yanks towards their nationalism is also extremely surprising, for nationalism is the most visible perk of the American people to the outside eye, much more than enthusiasm or optimism (these two perks are only acknowledge by people with a better knowledge of the Americans).

Paiktis is right when he's talking about the "Chosen People must save the world" syndrome. From my time in the OT, about every American who is not an extreme leftist (like Orange, Odin or Che) seems to have this point of view. It is extremely dangerous, I hope you "ordinary" Yanks are aware of it.

[Velociryx]

Good points, Spiff, and I definitely see what you're saying.

I think the article hits on it very well too, in describing "American Nationalism" as being essentially forward-looking.

Right or wrong, what lies behind the mindset is that America, in her colonial days was the ultimate underdog, set upon by what was at the time the predominant power of the Old World (the British Empire), and yet...she prevailed (EDIT: With a healthy dose of assistance from the French! ). Not only that, but she went on to eclipse her former master (who only had....oh, about a thousand year head start) in every measurable index.

If that isn't a success story, then there's no such thing.

It's the kind of success you can't really argue with, and IMO, that, more than anything, is what lies near the core of the desire to spread it around.

It works.

The failing though, is in recognizing that what works here isn't necessarily portable to other places (at least not without extensive modification). Where we saw success, other places have seen failure, and that failure was often punished, shall we say, "harshly."

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nationalism in the US is rather an ugly force that is backwards looking - usually to a golden age before Lincoln, FDR, what-have-you, before emancipation, feminism, the sexual revolution, what have you. Think Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, or any cracker screaming about "southern" (i.e. confederate) heritage. These people usually dislike either the left wing or right wing internationalist path and hate immigration. These are the sorts of crackers who complain about illegal immigration but love cheap lettuce.

I'm not sure I'd totally agree. Nationalism isn't confined to these people. I could easily say that people such as Al Gore and **** Gephart are nationalists as well. I don't see either of them trying to supplant US national soveriegnty with an international organization in the future either. I agree about the extreme left and extreme right looking towards international organizations, but the people in the middle of the spectrum are nationalistic and aren't always fond of speaking about the 'Good Old Days'.

I think you may ignore the middle path, which may be for some internationalization, but not so much that it takes away national soveriegnty, but is also deeply proud of its country (and doesn't think pride in country means some reactionary ideal).

[Dis]

you can't blame americans.

They realize there are many, many people (and not just terrorists) that want to see every american dead.

Can you blame americans for banding together and supportint public policy that ensures their survival? This is a matter of life and death.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Interesting.

I would disagree with this

First, American nationalism is based on political ideals, not those of cultural or ethnic superiority. That conception is entirely fitting for a society that still sees itself as a cultural and ethnic melting pot.

I would say that the US regards it's culture as superior.

I think that varies enormously, but generally I would say no. We know what we prefer, but we rarely assume that other peoples with similar economic strength will choose our cultural values over their own. In fact we seem to get a bit giddy when something American (like Jazz for instance) is picked up overseas and appreciated.

[Vince278]

Depends on how we define cultural superiority. Some of these items may be valid:

The US Constitution is often borrowed from or used as a model.
A vast majority of the world watch movies featured at the Academy Awards than at Cannes.

Personally, I find it all to be subjective. One way to tell is the relative jealousy level between two cultures.