American Nationalism

[Josephine Garfunkel]

The one thing that really bothers me about living in the U.S. is that people take the "democracy" very seriously. This fact is usually revealed within the first minutes of a conversation about politics. Every single American constantly whines about the fact that the government is a load of steaming dung and politicians are all evil. They proclaim that "could do it so much better!" Hearing people talk about government as an evil thing always leads me to believe that they wish for something else. Alas, I am always wrong. As soon as I say anything about maybe, perhaps no government would be better, they jump on me as anti-American. Unpatriotic, blasphemous. They point out that America is and always will be the best country in the world. And so I ask what makes America so much better than the rest of the world. The list usually goes something like this. 1) FREE SPEECH! "You can't say what you want in other countries!" Yes, because European countries are so tyrannical. 2) "WOMEN'S RIGHTS!!! Um, because women aren't participating in government/out-of-the-home in other other modern countries? What I'm getting at is that Americas seem to be living in the past. For some reason, they think that they are the only ones that have any type of liberty/freedom/individualism. I don't think they ever moved past WWII. And that's sad.

[Fourth Internationalist]

They point out that America is and always will be the best country in the world. And so I ask what makes America so much better than the rest of the world. The list usually goes something like this. 1) FREE SPEECH! "You can't say what you want in other countries!" Yes, because European countries are so tyrannical. 2) "WOMEN'S RIGHTS!!! Um, because women aren't participating in government/out-of-the-home in other other modern countries?

Omg all the time. They think America is a democracy and everywhere else people are begging to come and live with us. People are just so stupid!

[Josephine Garfunkel]

It just bothers me that we're so willing to mess around with the governments of other countries without realizing that perhaps not everyone wants what we have to "offer."

[Starship Stormtrooper]

It just bothers me that we're so willing to mess around with the governments of other countries without realizing that perhaps not everyone wants what we have to "offer."

Of course they don't want it, they've been mislead by the evil terrorists/Islamists/communists, who hate us for our freedom! Clearly they'll love us if we spread our free and peaceful ways by force ;). I still sometimes even hear the "but they thought there were WMDs" excuse for the Iraq invasion (as if the suspicion of the presence of a WMD justified an invasion :thumbdown:).

[Comrade Nasser]

Of course they don't want it, they've been mislead by the evil terrorists/Islamists/communists, who hate us for our freedom! Clearly they'll love us if we spread our free and peaceful ways by force ;). I still sometimes even hear the "but they thought there were WMDs" excuse for the Iraq invasion (as if the suspicion of the presence of a WMD justified an invasion :thumbdown:).

I hate the "murica' fuck yeah" types.

[conmharáin]

That's the creepy thing about American nationalism. Nationalists here fetishize "democracy" the same way Nazbols might fetishize "communism."

[Comrade Samuel]

It's almost as if the most historically illiterate people in the the entire world have decided to organize themselves and feel proud about things they have absolutely no control over...

No wait a second I'm describing neo-Nazis.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I think America's ultra-nationalism stems from the way they were founded; they rebelled and fought to be independent while all other British colonies submitted to British rule. Oh wait...what am I saying? India also fought for independence as did others. Ok, I'm lost. I won't even pretend to understand the American mindset, not being American myself.

Regardless of how America was founded if they're wary of their current system they need to seek out real alternatives and fix it. I'd suggest socialism except the majority of Americans don't understand it. If only there was an easy way to approach this.

[Ismail]

The teaching of American history in our schools is pretty atrociously done. I think a big problem is that the "radical" version of American history since the 70's has largely been about how privileged white men oppressed everyone else, something that is not a sound basis for historiography when you just use that to moralize about how much said white men sucked. Right-wingers are thus given free ground to talk about how the American revolution was a "conservative revolution" and try to contrast it to the French revolution which was "liberal" and supposedly contained many of the seeds of "totalitarianism."

This is heavily tied in with "American exceptionalism," the idea that the very existence of the USA and its revolution somehow debunks (or otherwise damages the universal application of) Marxist analysis.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

It's almost as if the most historically illiterate people in the the entire world have decided to organize themselves and feel proud about things they have absolutely no control over...


The amount of nationalism I get from my classmates is insane, despite only about 3/4 of them actually liking the country (I suppose those rest do it to fit in). When I stopped saying the pledge (upon learning of West Virginia v. Barnette) a couple of years ago, you would think that I had desecrated their ancestor's graves. Similar reactions were evoked when I failed to thank a marine for his service, when I failed to attend the flagpole prayer, and when I told some army recruiters to fuck off.

But that in itself demonstrates the nature of schools as a breeding ground for such nationalism. Generally, I haven't had much effect in attempting to counteract it.

[Josephine Garfunkel]

When I stopped saying the pledge (upon learning of West Virginia v. Barnette) a couple of years ago, you would think that I had desecrated their ancestor's graves. Similar reactions were evoked when I failed to thank a marine for his service, when I failed to attend the flagpole prayer, and when I told some army recruiters to fuck off.

But that in itself demonstrates the nature of schools as a breeding ground for such nationalism. Generally, I haven't had much effect in attempting to counteract it.

It baffles me that Americans detest the totalitarian regimes (think WWII), yet fail to realize that by demanding people honor the government/military (pledge, national anthem) they're basically doing the same thing. I refuse to support any type of military and people have actually gotten angry at me for voicing that opinion. I don't understand how they can't see how controlling that is. Why must I support America? I didn't choose to live here; I was born here. Shouldn't I get a choice in the matter?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is US nationalism really all that different than in other countries? I just thought it was because our government is much more blatant and agressive due to the position of the US in imperialism and so when people reflect these ideas it comes out all blood-thirsty, arrogent, and bullying.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It baffles me that Americans detest the totalitarian regimes (think WWII), yet fail to realize that by demanding people honor the government/military (pledge, national anthem) they're basically doing the same thing. I refuse to support any type of military and people have actually gotten angry at me for voicing that opinion. I don't understand how they can't see how controlling that is. Why must I support America? I didn't choose to live here; I was born here. Shouldn't I get a choice in the matter?

LOL, at my work there's a right-wing windbag who's a regular guest and he likes to talk politics to employees who can't talk back because they are working! Anyway he's one of these "Obama's a Socialist, everything's socialist, everything is destroying the country". He's also a vet and hilariously he'll rant about "creeping socialism" one minute and then wax nostalgic about his army days and talk about how nice it was that everything was taken care of for housing and food and you knew who was in charge and accountable. His straw-man of authoritarian socialism sounds a lot like his nostalgia for military life! :lol:

[Josephine Garfunkel]

He's also a vet and hilariously he'll rant about "creeping socialism" one minute and then wax nostalgic about his army days and talk about how nice it was that everything was taken care of for housing and food and you knew who was in charge and accountable. His straw-man of authoritarian socialism sounds a lot like his nostalgia for military life! :lol:

Yep. Americans don't see the difference. I think it has to do with definitions. They don't understand what political words even mean. (Socialism, Communism, Anarchism). They just know: Hiter=BAD, America=GOOD. The funny thing is that a lot of people wish the government would do "socialist" things, but they don't even realize what socialism means. So even though they wish the government would be more socialist, they yell and scream that socialism is evil.

[Skyhilist]

1) FREE SPEECH! "You can't say what you want in other countries!"
hWiBt-pqp0E

[DasFapital]

I noticed most of the conservative leaning people I'm around (which are quite a few) have never been overseas or if they have its either on some church mission trip or as part of military service, so I am guessing that colors their views of life outside the ol' US of A. That and our education system sucks ass.

[TomHPMc]

The US is a relatively 'new' country by most standards. You could almost trace the States' rampant patriotism to that, the fact that the US had to reconcile for their lack of history by making idols of people like Washington (with his own folksy tree-chopping origin story), editing history (almost completely dismissing the French involvement in the battle for independance) and shoving it all down people's throats.

[Red Commissar]

Omg all the time. They think America is a democracy and everywhere else people are begging to come and live with us. People are just so stupid!

Well the problem is that there is still a perception abroad that living in the US is great among many people, and this is ignoring the impact of movies, music, games, sports, and such they associate with the US. Coming from a family of immigrants I can definitely say this is the case among older people in my family and those who are still back in the homeland in their perceptions of the United States (confuses me more when you see many of them aren't exactly living too well here either). So these guys will feel vindicate in their claims that the masses of the world idolize the US. The only difference is they don't usually view the political system or philosophy as infallible in the United States as some of these types might do.

Like Ismail said a big part of this comes from American Exceptionalism, the concept that the US is truly unique as far as human history is concerned and has done nothing but good in the two centuries and a half it's been around. It's an intoxicating concept for people who want to try and reinvent the US as a force for good rather than see the reality of states as actors for the ruling class and other self-interest. The latter is too cold and detached for them- how would they fit in?

Texas really pushed this bs (http://www.revleft.com/vb/religious-conservatives-trying-t129110/index.html?t=12911) in fights over standards and textbooks for middle-schoolers a couple years back. There's been a backlash against perceived distortions of history by angry liberals that certain political groups have been able to cultivate into pursuing their agenda.

Generally speaking though it has been useful for nations to invent some sort of exaggerated and glorified past for people to get drawn into. We had a weirdo on this forum a few years back who tried to push some crap about an "American" socialist party complete with imagery that would make a fash blush, as well as another who, I can't tell if he was a troll or not, preached some weird notion of "United Jeffersonian Socialist Front".

As for big gubmint types what can accurately be said about them is that it comes down to them not wanting welfare programs they perceive to be abused and a drain. Except for the more nuttier ones who've been reading too much rand or lolbertarian stuff, most probably couldn't see how they'd go by without schools, police, firemen, the military, etc.

I'd say the more problematic manifestations of this comes in foreign policy, an inability to criticize their government's actions abroad and falling into the mentality of supporting the troops or w/e because they associate it as something they are involved in too. Or trying to understand foreign relations in that light, ie people against the US are undemocratic hellholes, not political rivals or anything. Or the mentality that the US isn't wrong in its nationbuilding attempts in Africa or Middle-East, that it's tied up in their own economic interests. Democracy not working in countries you invaded? Clearly the problem is they don't know how to do it because only Americans appreciate democracy! Nothing else. Nope.

[Sidagma]

Is US nationalism really all that different than in other countries? I just thought it was because our government is much more blatant and agressive due to the position of the US in imperialism and so when people reflect these ideas it comes out all blood-thirsty, arrogent, and bullying.

It's extremely different. The US is a state-nation of sorts; that is to say, its perception of itself as a nation differs from the way that, say, the Netherlands or Ireland conceive of themselves. The USA is just that -- the United States of America. The government is the nation, it is the people. You can have an anarchist Ireland, because without the Irish state obviously Ireland will still exist.

So if we're talking nationality, on one hand you have, say, Ireland, which is an ethnicity, and which will continue to exist in the event of the collapse of the Republic of Ireland. But "American" isn't an ethnicity. It's a position of privilege that is predicated on the continued existence of the USA. Without the USA, and its continued military, cultural, political, economic, etc, dominance, there are no more Americans.

[Ismail]

It's extremely different. The US is a state-nation of sorts; that is to say, its perception of itself as a nation differs from the way that, say, the Netherlands or Ireland conceive of themselves. The USA is just that -- the United States of America. The government is the nation, it is the people. You can have an anarchist Ireland, because without the Irish state obviously Ireland will still exist.

So if we're talking nationality, on one hand you have, say, Ireland, which is an ethnicity, and which will continue to exist in the event of the collapse of the Republic of Ireland. But "American" isn't an ethnicity. It's a position of privilege that is predicated on the continued existence of the USA. Without the USA, and its continued military, cultural, political, economic, etc, dominance, there are no more Americans.You could probably apply this to an English ("British") person during the days when the British Empire still existed and you'd wind up with a wrong conclusion just as well. An American nation does exist, there are common histories (albeit from obviously different positions) between English, Irish, German, etc. Americans and black Americans, for instance. American nationhood was in ample evidence by the time of the civil war and the USA obviously wasn't an imperialist superpower at the time.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You could probably apply this to an English ("British") person during the days when the British Empire still existed.

Yeah my impression is that it isn't really all that worse in the US, it's more the case that there is less class consiousness and less opposition and so jingoism seems to be more common because there's rarely a challenge to it. But other than that I think it's just that the US need to promote jingoism more because it tends to be more agressive internationally. When all the rationales for the "War on Terror" have been exposed, the US basically just has "they are barbarians, they hate our freedoms" left to lean on and they can drum up enough support for that when there's no organized challenge.

[GPDP]

As for big gubmint types what can accurately be said about them is that it comes down to them not wanting welfare programs they perceive to be abused and a drain. Except for the more nuttier ones who've been reading too much rand or lolbertarian stuff, most probably couldn't see how they'd go by without schools, police, firemen, the military, etc.

Keep in mind a lot of the anti-welfare rhetoric and mindset is little more than thinly-veiled racism. Them saying they don't want their tax dollars to go to welfare queens is basically code for "I don't want them darkies getting government help". Sadly, supporting the gutting of the welfare state ends up betraying their interests as well, but there you go. The American state could not hope for a better situation than to subtly feed on the latent racism of a good number of people to make them support policies that go against their own interests.

[Red Commissar]

Keep in mind a lot of the anti-welfare rhetoric and mindset is little more than thinly-veiled racism. Them saying they don't want their tax dollars to go to welfare queens is basically code for "I don't want them darkies getting government help". Sadly, supporting the gutting of the welfare state ends up betraying their interests as well, but there you go. The American state could not hope for a better situation than to subtly feed on the latent racism of a good number of people to make them support policies that go against their own interests.

Yes, the whole rhetoric in the 80s and 90s using words like urban voters and more infamously "welfare queen" were essentially racism cloaked in a different way. Heck this could be seen as far back as Nixon's southern strategy. Similar kickbacks have developed in European welfare programs with respect to minority populations, especially those from North Africa, Middle-East, Eastern Europe, and Romani. They're conscious of this accusation though, they've been going around getting some model minority that doesn't draw on programs, or better yet accuses the programs of being a method of control by the democrats.

It's easy for these people to cry about abuses on these programs, but you rarely see them say get angry with farming subsidies or even realizing that a considerable amount of people on the food stamp programs are from military families. I don't know how they reconcile the whole "support the troops" bullshit with cutting into programs the same people rely on too.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It doesnt help that the US has been the anchor of world imperialism since the second world war, and still is.

I wonder what it would have been like to be a communist in britain in the 1890s. (absent the very raw experience of capitalism and colonialism)

[Ismail]

I wonder what it would have been like to be a communist in britain in the 1890s. (absent the very raw experience of capitalism and colonialism)Better from a political angle than the present-day USA. According to the 1970's Soviet encyclopedia:


In the last third of the 19th century the headlong growth of the working class continued (in the middle of the 19th century the urban population was 50.2 percent; in 1871, 61.8 percent; and in 1901, 77 percent). During the 1870’s the workers’ movement on the whole was characterized by comparative political passivity. There was an increase in the influence of the workers’ aristocracy, which had grown in numbers, along with that of the reformist trade-union leaders. Politically, the English working class became “an appendage to the ’great liberal party,’ that is, the party of its own enslavers, the capitalists” (K. Marx in K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 34, p. 249). During the 1880’s, when the consequences of the loss of Britain’s industrial monopoly began to be felt, under conditions of the prolonged economic crisis, the workers’ movement began to assume a militant character. Numerous demonstrations and meetings were held. The government’s attempt to prohibit meetings in Trafalgar Square in London led to a clash between the workers and the police (“Bloody Sunday,” Nov. 13, 1887). Broad strata of unskilled workers began to join the struggle. A turning point was reached with the mass strikes by the workers of the gas companies of London (May 1889) and the London dockworkers (August-September 1889). These strikes, which ended with the victory of the workers (the establishment of an eight-hour workday in the gas industry and fixed wages for the dockworkers), led to the creation of the so-called new trade unions. By 1900 the membership in trade unions had grown to 1,972,000 (in 1880 there had been 604,000), which inflicted considerable damage on the monopolistic position of the workers’ aristocracy in the trade unions. The growth of the workers’ movement led to the intensification of socialist propaganda. In 1884 as a result of the transformation of the Democratic Federation, which had existed since 1881, the Social Democratic Federation was created; it advanced the propagation of socialist ideas to the foreground. However, the leadership of the federation (H. M. Hyndman and others), while declaring that they acknowledged Marxism, actually carried out an opportunistic, sectarian policy. In December 1884 the revolutionary elements left the Social Democratic Federation; they created the Socialist League (E. Marx, E. Aveling, and W. Morris were among the group’s members).

The Fabian Society, founded in 1884 by a group of bourgeois intellectuals (S. Webb and others), strove to turn the workers away from the ideas of Marxism by criticizing individual aspects of the capitalist system and by propaganda for “municipal socialism.” By unmasking the bourgeois “socialists"—the Fabians—F. Engels carried on a struggle for the creation of a genuinely proletarian mass party in Britain. In 1893, during conditions of an upswing in the workers’ movement, the Independent Labour Party was founded, connected with the new trade unions and declaring socialism as its ultimate goal; however, the leaders of this party (J. Keir Hardie and others), who were under the strong influence of bourgeois ideology, opposed the class struggle....

The economic difficulties caused a worsening of the position of the workers and a growth in unemployment. In connection with a railroad strike against the Taff Vale Company (1901), the House of Lords (the highest juridical instance) required that the trade unions make compensation for the losses caused by the strike. This essentially deprived trade unions of the right to participate in strikes. Only in 1906 was this law abolished. Under the influence of the economic crisis that began in 1907, and also affected by the Revolution of 1905-07 in Russia, a mass strike movement developed in Britain, and trade unions grew rapidly; in 1914 the railroad, transport, and mine unions formed a “triple alliance,” which agreed to mutual support in strikes. The British proletariat came to an ever-increasing awareness of the importance of political struggle and the need for workers’ representation in Parliament. In 1900 representatives from the trade unions, professional councils, socialist organizations, and the Independent Labour Party created the Labour Party (which up until 1906 bore the name Labour Electoral Committee). From the very beginning, however, the right-wing leaders of the new party conducted a policy of class peace and essentially subordinated its activity to the interests of the bourgeoisie.

[ckaihatsu]

I think America's ultra-nationalism stems from the way they were founded; they rebelled and fought to be independent while all other British colonies submitted to British rule.





American Exceptionalism [is] the concept that the US is truly unique as far as human history is concerned and has done nothing but good in the two centuries and a half it's been around.


The thing with the U.S. is that it *epitomizes* the concept and phrase of being 'in the right place at the right time' -- the country didn't even *exist* during the centuries of warfare in Europe, and only had to rebuff an opportunistic policy of tax measures from the crown in order to come into its own, on a great mass of "new" land. It only got *singed* by Europe -- Britain and France -- from the War of 1812, and then had to get its shit together with its own Civil War, but after that has had *very* smooth sailing through industrialization and into a world power, in record time.

It's been so privileged in relation to world events that it's been able to initially pooh-pooh two world wars and be "isolationist" until *having* to participate, through which it's profited tremendously both times.

What worked in WWII -- imperialist military might -- became overextended in Korea and then Vietnam, with the result of the U.S. having to go off of the gold standard, but still retaining its own dollar as the world reserve currency.

In the contemporary era (c. 1980s onward) improving consumer technology has done far more for democracy worldwide than any governments have, so the U.S. nation-state is no longer the protagonist it once was, but it still continues to exert military and cultural influence on par with the Roman Empire of antiquity.

The typical American political schizophrenia of triumphalism-and-hand-wringing is due to this massive lucky break of history, and can only be resolved with a therapeutic journey into the person's *own* life work history and less-than-explainable jolts in an otherwise capable and even robust national context.

[billydan225]

Isin't natinalism and white nationalism 2 different things

[Ismail]

Isin't natinalism and white nationalism 2 different thingsYes? "White nationalism" is a word used by racists since it sounds less offensive than using the word racism or Neo-Nazism. They basically talk about preserving "white culture/values/race" against blacks/Jews/Hispanics/anything not white.

As for nationalism, since I'm quoting the 70's Soviet encyclopedia already I figure I'll note its definition: "a bourgeois and petit bourgeois ideology and policy, as well as the outlook that raises the national question. Nationalism views the nation as a supreme nonhistorical and supraclass form of social unity and as a harmonious whole, all of whose social strata have identical fundamental interests. The aspirations of the class or social group that emerged under particular concrete-historical conditions as the bearer and champion of nationalist ideology and policy of the bourgeoisie or petite bourgeoisie are portrayed as the national interests. Characteristic of nationalism are ideas of national superiority and national exclusiveness, which are developed to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the historical situation and the relations of a particular nation with other nations."

[GPDP]

Yes, the whole rhetoric in the 80s and 90s using words like urban voters and more infamously "welfare queen" were essentially racism cloaked in a different way. Heck this could be seen as far back as Nixon's southern strategy. Similar kickbacks have developed in European welfare programs with respect to minority populations, especially those from North Africa, Middle-East, Eastern Europe, and Romani. They're conscious of this accusation though, they've been going around getting some model minority that doesn't draw on programs, or better yet accuses the programs of being a method of control by the democrats.

It's easy for these people to cry about abuses on these programs, but you rarely see them say get angry with farming subsidies or even realizing that a considerable amount of people on the food stamp programs are from military families. I don't know how they reconcile the whole "support the troops" bullshit with cutting into programs the same people rely on too.

That's because they don't. Remember, much of this rhetoric comes straight down from the top, usually from the more reactionary segments of the ruling class and their mouthpieces (although it's not something completely alien to the so-called progressives among them, they're just more subtle and nice about it). It's mindless bile meant to be easily absorbed and effortlessly regurgitated among the petit-bourgeois and segments of the working class under the thrall of said reactionary ideologies. There's no critical component that comes into the picture anywhere in this process. It's literally pre-packaged talking points for people to take in and repeat to others without considering what it all means.