Do you believe in the American exceptionalism

[SuperJay]

We could, but is it worth the effort? If you seriously believe that every other civilization in history pales in comparison to the great USA#1, you're just not going to be convinced otherwise by anything that someone on the Internet says. Those people are either "jealous" (that's for you foreigners) or an "apologist" (that's for fellow countrymen) and either way it all just comes down to "bashing America."

For me, part of being patriotic is being realistic about my great country. And I love America, make no mistake. I'm proud to be American and I'm proud of what my country has achieved in our short history. But to pretend my nation is somehow inherently better or "more unique" than any other actually takes away from that patriotism, that love for my country, because that's not a real country, that's a fictional ideal that doesn't exist. Having to put it on a pedestal and refusing to acknowledge our place in history (among other great nations, rather than above them) cheapens that devotion. How can you really love something if you can't accept it for what it truly is, warts and all?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Right. Language, culture, art, politics, all those things pale in comparison to technology! Much of which we didn't even invent.

Umm... not that I'm agreeing with his basic position, but everything he mentioned we DID invent except for the satellite bit. Telephones and the internet, airplanes, and nuclear weapons were invented in the US. Satellites to take pictures from space not so much, I'm not an expert on that technology but wiki says Sputnik was the first one so, good on ya, USSR, you did invent something worth talking about.

 

[BasketCase]

We could, but is it worth the effort? If you seriously believe that every other civilization in history pales in comparison to the great USA#1

What if the above is actually true? (We did, in fact, go from a motley bunch of colonies to being the sole superpower in only three hundred years)

you're just not going to be convinced otherwise by anything that someone on the Internet says. Those people are either "jealous" (that's for you foreigners) or an "apologist" (that's for fellow countrymen) and either way it all just comes down to "bashing America."

There are indeed a bunch of people who are jealous. And a bunch of people who are apologists. And a bunch of people who are American-bashers. I've met them.

The above criteria don't include any verifiable way to prove that the United States is not genuinely exceptional. True, if a person is absolutely convinced of their delusion, they're not going to be convinced by anything that someone on the Internet says. But the truth is also not going to be changed by anything that someone on the Internet says.

So, how do we sort out truth from delusion? (And keep in mind the difference between what is true, and what one wishes were true--I'm willing to bet a number of this thread's poll respondents clicked "no" out of wishing)

 

[Ajidica]

(We did, in fact, go from a motley bunch of colonies to being the sole superpower in only three hundred years)

And Rome went from a motely collection of Italian city-states to the most powerful and one of the largest Empires the world had seen in two hundred years (and managed to stay that way for another four hundred years almost).
I think they have us beat given that Rome was fighting against powerful and well established states for territory. America simply brought in the rifles against some people with stone-age technology.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Two words: Mongol horde.

 

[Traitorfish]

There is clearly good and bad, but America's influence on the planet, overall, has been positive, and it has been massive.

What a convenient way to write millions of butchered innocents out of the picture.

What if the above is actually true? (We did, in fact, go from a motley bunch of colonies to being the sole superpower in only three hundred years)

In what sense would that imply some sort of essential uniqueness? Even setting apart comparable ascensions- Roman, Mongol, British, etc.- it does not in itself suggest any special status, let alone that of a "superior" "civilisation"; that's like suggesting that becoming a heavy-weight champion by age 23 entitles you to a tenured professorship at Harvard.

 

[Theige]

What a convenient way to write millions of butchered innocents out of the picture.

It accounts for the multitudes more we have saved.

 

[Junius]

What a convenient way to write millions of butchered innocents out of the picture.


In what sense would that imply some sort of essential uniqueness? Even setting apart comparable ascensions- Roman, Mongol, British, etc.- it does not in itself suggest any special status, let alone that of a "superior" "civilisation"; that's like suggesting that becoming a heavy-weight champion by age 23 entitles you to a tenured professorship at Harvard.

I think you may be giving us too much credit regarding our body count, but we do have one and other nations have much higher ones so the exact number isn't important. I was more curious how you got it than anything.

It would seem pretty clear that the US is a unique nation. Nation of immigrants. Only a minority of countries fit that description. A republic our entire history. No dictators, that is unique even among western countries. One of the largest both in territory and population. Leader both economically and militarily. Has been for more than a half century. Very influential culture around the world. Certainly some attitudes regarding religion and individualism are more common here than elsewhere. None of those things are probably incredible on their own, but together they add up to a very unique country.

I don't speak for all americans here, but i know i'm not claiming superiority and i don't think most others are either. Don't have a problem with exceptional though. It is very unique.

 

[NiRv4n4]

Millions of butchered innocents? I'd say perhaps thousands, maybe a few hundred thousand if you count the US vs Indians, and to count World War/other deaths is ludicrous. Even then, deaths of innocents in war are inevitable, and massacres like those in the Indian Wars and Vietnam are regrettable, but ubiquitous in world history. America may have provoked the Indigenous people, but in many cases the violence was a consequence of both sides' actions. To say the United States of America butchered millions is ridiculous. Colonial Spain might fit in to that, but the vast majority of dead Native Americans were a result of disease.

And on the statement that Rome developed first, and contributed more to the world, doesn't mean its influence was greater than that of America. The technology and culture of Rome and Greece made America into what it is today, but in terms of direct effect on the world today, America is far more influential than a few important ancient civilizations that died out thousand(s) of years ago. It isn't Roman centurions that form the most powerful military in the world, it isn't Mesopotamian scientists developing new technologies, it isn't British industry pumping out most of the worlds manufactured goods. Their lead in these positions is over, and nowadays, America stands out from all the rest in these regards. China and India are becoming pretty powerful, but it will be a long time before their quality of life and global reputation/influence reach that of America.

All of this makes America exceptional, good or bad. Any attribute of a nation can be construed either way; military = security or killing power, industry = good economy or bad environment, science = reaching forward or human hubris. Etc etc. But America stands out in all of these regards from other western nations. As other Junius said, America holds numerous important descriptions no other western nation does.

 

[Arakhor]

Funny. The UK has never had any dictators and was formed earlier than the United States was. Even the Kingdoms of England and Scotland only had a couple for a total of eleven years and that was 360 years ago. I'm also of the opinion that it's actually China producing the majority of the world's manufactured goods.

 

[Junius]

Funny. The UK has never had any dictators and was formed earlier than the United States was. Even the Kingdoms of England and Scotland only had a couple for a total of eleven years and that was 360 years ago. I'm also of the opinion that it's actually China producing the majority of the world's manufactured goods.

The UK fits many of the criteria i listed, though it was of course not exhaustive. Certainly not a nation of immigrants though. This isn't about knocking other countries, not trying to do that.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

What I hate about Americans has been shown in this thread by quite a few. They are totally arrogant to every other culture and civilisation, and always claim they are the best at everything. Every non-American commenting on this thread say that other nations were more important, and not their own. I believe Rome was the most important, and I am neither from Italy nor been there.

Rome shaped Western Europe from barbarians into civilised kingdoms, giving them roads, public health systems etc. and Western Europe went on to colonise most of the world, and brought Roman ideas all over the world. Okay, the USA has been major in the past 100 years or so but the Romans shaped the world to be what it is today, nothing the USA can ever achieve unless they conquer the world, IMO.

 

[Cutlass]

That wasn't all, or even most. Americans. Certainly America has had a huge impact on the world in the past century. But human history goes back a few (dozen) centuries longer than that.

 

[Junius]

What I hate about Americans has been shown in this thread by quite a few. They are totally arrogant to every other culture and civilisation, and always claim they are the best at everything. Every non-American commenting on this thread say that other nations were more important, and not their own. I believe Rome was the most important, and I am neither from Italy nor been there.

Rome shaped Western Europe from barbarians into civilised kingdoms, giving them roads, public health systems etc. and Western Europe went on to colonise most of the world, and brought Roman ideas all over the world. Okay, the USA has been major in the past 100 years or so but the Romans shaped the world to be what it is today, nothing the USA can ever achieve unless they conquer the world, IMO.

Rome was incredibly influential. For hundreds of years, very hard to do. Hard to compare the periods though. The world was so different it's almost apples and oranges. For example how do you compare landing on the moon or developing nuclear weapons to building such a durable empire or great engineering projects? You can't really. We would all be wise to avoid yet another comparison between the US and Rome.

 

[NiRv4n4]

So saying the truth, that the USA is dominant in the world at this time, and being an American, makes me arrogant? I recognize the importance of Rome, Greece, etc, and Rome was a major innovator - the world would be a very different place if that wolf chose to kill Romulus and Remus. But the past century has been one of America, and if America hadn't achieved independence, the world would also be very different.

Just because America and the rest of the west built of Rome doesn't mean they are less important and Rome more important. If my child were to become president, would that make me more important, as I directly led to his/her position of power? Not really. Sure, I raised the kid, and taught them what they know, but they are the one with the power, the one in charge.

And I never meant to say the US is in charge of manufacturing goods, just that Britain isn't anymore. Again, Rome/Egypt/France may have been super powerful in the past, but not so much anymore.

 

[BasketCase]

I think they have us beat given that Rome was fighting against powerful and well established states for territory. America simply brought in the rifles against some people with stone-age technology.

Before them, we were up against the British. Whole nuther story. In fact they had us beat in terms of gear, numbers, and mostly training (until we started pulling cheap tricks such as shooting from cover--in fact, we Americans are the origin of the term "camper" in FPS games! )

In what sense would that imply some sort of essential uniqueness?

The words "sole superpower" are self-explanationary. They confer a sense of essential uniqueness because we're the only one.

They are totally arrogant to every other culture and civilisation, and always claim they are the best at everything.

I was about to make a joke about Americans not being the best at hockey--then I remembered we just stole the Stanley Cup from Vancouver......

 

[Traitorfish]

It accounts for the multitudes more we have saved.

But did the dead have to die for the innocent to be saved?

I think you may be giving us too much credit regarding our body count, but we do have one and other nations have much higher ones so the exact number isn't important. I was more curious how yout got it than anything.

Oh, I'm certainly not suggesting that the American body count is exceptionally high- it really isn't- just that I am ever sceptical of those who opt for viewing things as this tallying of scores, this vulgar utilitarianism, rather than addressing the unpleasant realities of history in all their ugliness and complexity. It's easy to say that your virtues outweigh your sins, but if your sins cannot be justified as the necessary evils upon which your virtues depend, then you are not, to put it very lightly, going home with a gold star on your school jumper.

The words "sole superpower" are self-explanationary. They confer a sense of essential uniqueness because we're the only one.

But that isn't "essential", it's merely contemporary. It is not an innate property of the US to be a sole global superpower, nor is it likely to be a permanent characteristic.

(Plus, "superpower" is an arbitrary category, not an objective one; I could define Scotland as the sole "haggispower", but it doesn't mean much if the criteria have been drawn up in a consciously exclusive fashion.)

So saying the truth, that the USA is dominant in the world at this time, and being an American, makes me arrogant?

No, but characterising of what could very generously be described as a limited primacy as international dominance might. Or do you forget that we live in a world containing the Republic of South Ossetia?

 

[Lord of Elves]

Before them, we were up against the British. Whole nuther story. In fact they had us beat in terms of gear, numbers, and mostly training (until we started pulling cheap tricks such as shooting from cover--in fact, we Americans are the origin of the term "camper" in FPS games! )

Believe it or not, armies in the 18th century were not beheld by law to stand in long lines and shoot at the same time. It was merely advantageous to do so because the guns of the time were so inaccurate it was virtually the only way either side could do real damage to the other without the use of artillery. In close quarter engagements, European armies were just as if not more adept at using the terrain to their advantage, because believe it or not the superior training and equipment afforded to professional British soldiers was superior to "Yankee ingenuity" and "spunk" on more occasions than you might imagine. But yeah, camping's an achievement. Woo, USA #1!

The words "sole superpower" are self-explanationary. They confer a sense of essential uniqueness because we're the only one.

And before that, European imperial powers as a whole exerted, arguably, as much or more influence on the world than the United States does now.

 

[Ajidica]

Funny. The UK has never had any dictators and was formed earlier than the United States was.

Cromwell?
EDIT: Nevermind. My mind blanked and I forgot about the 1707 Acts of Union.

Before them, we were up against the British. Whole nuther story. In fact they had us beat in terms of gear, numbers, and mostly training

We also had a little tactical advantage of being on a different continent fighting an empire that really didn't want to fight us, fighting an empire that had just come out of a very expensive war, and we soon had French and Spanish assistance. Tacticaly, we were outmatched. Strategicaly, the colonies were in a pretty good position. We could just keep retreating!

(until we started pulling cheap tricks such as shooting from cover--in fact, we Americans are the origin of the term "camper" in FPS games! )

'Shooting from cover' was hardly an American invention. The Roundhead Dragoons used it at Naseby to fire withering volleys into Cavalier ranks from behind a hedge before mounting a cavalry charge.
Looking further, we can find numerous accounts of light infantry, dragoons, and even accounts of line infantry taking advantage of cover in battle. Contrary to what countless poorly made Revolutionary War movies have shown you, European armies did know how to hide behind cover and make good use of it.
Additionaly, the whole concept of the American sharpshooter hiding in the forests taking potshots at Brits has been vastly exagerated. One of the few major uses of sharpshooters in the revolutionary war outside of skirmishes (in which the Brits were just as good as us. They did create the 95th Sharpshooters after all) was at Cowpens, a major field battle.

 

[Theige]

But did the dead have to die for the innocent to be saved?

What exactly are you trying to say?