Saturday, September 08, 2007

Rethinking the American Character


Introduction


Americans pride themselves on the notion that the United States is the end result of rugged individualism and providential intent. It conjures romantic image of common people making their way to an unknown distant shore, empty of pocket but full of ambition and carving out a society from a savage wilderness that is repeatedly cited as the playing field on which a westward expanding nation was won. Rooted in our cultural psyche is this belief that a faith in ourselves and a commission by God to face any challenge with a manifest destiny would transform the sweat of our brow into the divine rain that would slake the thirst of a parched earth and water the seeds of fortune. This mythic icon of faith based self-reliance diminishes the role that secular society has played in providing the environment by which American wealth and freedom have been obtained.

There is no denying that in little more than 500 years of European settlement and less than 250 years of nationhood, America has achieved an unequalled economic, political and military dominance. This accomplishment often leads its citizens to believe that America's success could only have occurred through the guiding hand of Providence thus providing its citizenry with a notion of exceptionalism that sets it apart from all the great powers of the past. Ironically, it is the achievement of this status that led its predecessors to develop a similar view of themselves and their inevitable fall from grace.

Americans want to believe that the status this nation has attained is insurmountable and a power that, by God's will, shall be held for time immemorial. But, by reviewing the history of national power, the odds are greatly stacked against any nation achieving and maintaining permanent dominance. Perhaps that is rightly so as human development requires that society evolves or revolves to meet the demands of a kinetic species. But, if this notion of exceptionalism is true, then America needs to learn the lessons of the past to determine the best course it can take to achieve a lasting prominence, if not dominant influence, in this ever changing world.

To better understand the role America can play in shaping the world's future, it will be essential to look to the past and to understand the circumstance and catalysts that allowed tribes and nations to arise to prominence, the tactics and methodologies they applied to maintain their preeminence and the evolutions and revolutions that led to their downfall. This analysis of America's predecessors will help us better understand how America came to be and led its founders to apply a distinctively novel approach to governance that led us to the dominant position we presently occupy. Finally, we must look at the United States today and assess this nation and its people and the challenges we face as the sole superpower and the evolutionary steps we need to make in our domestic and foreign policies to sustain our world status and to prepare our nation for the likely arrival of the next great challenger to our preeminence.

If Providence guides any group of people to achieve dominance over its known world then it comes with the realization that the divine is fickle. Our challenge is to determine if, indeed the all knowing has created us to fulfill its human destiny or if, instead we have created it to justify our ambitions.

Labels: , , , , ,

2 Comments:

At Tue Sep 18, 07:30:00 AM CDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw your recent comment about "the failure of understanding" that resulted in 9/11. You said, in part:

No, we were attacked for no reason whatsoever. Out of the blue. Of course our toppling of Mossadegh and the installation of the puppet Shah of Iran, our support of Israel's incursions into Egypt in an attempt to secure the Suez Canal and the Sinai, our creation, training and support of and abandonment of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, our involvement in the war on Lebanon, our unilateral support of Israel's occupation of the Gaza, West Bank and the Golan Heights, our propping up of Saddam Hussein, our arming of Hussein against the Iranians and the million plus Islamic deaths that resulted thereof, our invasion of Somalia, our wink-wink nudge nudge tacit approval of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait followed by our invasion of Iraq, our sanctions and enforcement of the no-fly zone of Iraq through constant bombardment that led to the death of half of million civilians, our heavy handedness against Palestinians and the Middle East, our propping up of the Saudi, Egyptian and Moroccan dictatorships... none of these were factors that led to our being attacked on 9/11... where they The Real Bob Anthony?


My first thought was -- didn't you forget our 1805 invasion of Tripoli? But seriously, Osama bin Laden really cared about whether a Shiite Marxist or a Shiite Shah ruled Iran in 1953? He wants to kill them all (AQ has a $1000 per head bounty on Shiites in Iraq).

Well, as to what caused AQ to "get mad" at us, should we listen to AQ or Dave Carroll on that question? If we listen to AQ, the problem seems to have been ONLY that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce the no-fly zone.

Of course, now that AQ is on the run and Osama is coughing in a cave, they have found how useful that useful-infidels can be. Now I hear that AQ is mad because the U.S. hasn't ratified Kyoto! So, the next time you make a series of statements in the form of a question about AQ's motivations, remember to mention Kyoto. Heck, toss the Barbary Pirate War in there, too.

R.R. Hamilton

 
At Tue Sep 18, 08:58:00 AM CDT, Blogger Dave Carroll said...

Oh, I could have listed numerous other accounts going back to 1095 and the first Crusade, R.R. but that wasn't necessary. A quick snapshot of the last 50 years will suffice as it reflects what one liftime can witness and the opinions and reactions that arise from it.

You wish to diminish the argument to "getting mad." In their mind, it is a small measure of getting even and essential to survival. Righteously indignant or no, I often ask myself the question, "If any foreign society had repeatedly assaulted my people and my lands, how would I react?"

I'm guessing, R.R., that you wouldn't just role over and take it. You'd resist and eventually demonize every man, woman and child from that nation as instruments of your suffering. As an American Indian, this isn't an academic exercise to me. Nor is it it for the Muslim population of the Middle East. They learned from the history of my people that capitulation will lead to cultural and spiritual destruction and they have absolutely no intention of being reservationized.

The old saying is true, A.A.; Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. Our forays of folly are a classic example of human misunderstanding and the resulting actions thereof.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home