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

[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.

[BeBMan]

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.