Rewriting U.S.A History?

@qualia,

So I was kind of musing on this topic today.
I got to wondering how Rusian history books (say) portray WWII. I am sure it is much different than the portrayal in US history books or even English history books.
I was wondering how Australian history books portray the interactions with the Australian aboriginal peoples. History is always written from a view point.
All countries emphasize their particular role in the world and their relationship to other countries.
Why do we even teach history in schools. Arent we trying to instill a sense of national identity, national pride, and our place in the world?
Is there anything wrong with the Russians emphasizing their role in the defeat of the Germans in WWII and the Americans emphasizing theirs?
:detective:

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 01:17 PM ----------

qualia;166708 wrote:

Cool. Could we then undersdtand the term American Exceptionalism as not referring to the American people as exceptional, outstanding, fine and superior?

If so, what exactly does the term refer to (wiki links won't be much help on this one)?

There are lots of reason why America has risen to superpower status. Some of them are just geographical. Ready access to the Pacific and the Atlantic. Isolated from the physical destruction and civilian population losses that devasted Europe in the last two wars. The only intact industrial economy after WWII. It does not have to do with racial superiority at all. It has to do with opportunity, ability and motivation as does all success in the world. Our time in the sun will be limited. Even now there is the notion of the rise of the rest and the inevitable rise of the large population centers of India and China. For the time being though there is still something special about America. The biggest impediment to progress in the world is quite simply large, inefficient, corrupt bad government. Part of the dispute in America is precisely the dispute over the size and extent of government.

3 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166662 wrote:

But I see no reason it cannot be presented as an hypothesis to be discussed and considered by those who read our textbooks. It would stimulate learning, and thinking. How would that be bad? Of course, there will be those who will resent even the proposal of such an hypothesis because of its mere suggestion that [it] might be true. Well, let them resent away! As Aristotle said, it is the mark of an educated man that he can entertain a proposal without endorsing it.

That sounds like an argument for teaching creationism in school.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;167020 wrote:

So I was kind of musing on this topic today.
I got to wondering how Rusian history books (say) portray WWII. I am sure it is much different than the portrayal in US history books or even English history books.
I was wondering how Australian history books portray the interactions with the Australian aboriginal peoples. History is always written from a view point.
All countries emphasize their particular role in the world and their relationship to other countries.
Why do we even teach history in schools. Arent we trying to instill a sense of national identity, national pride, and our place in the world?
Is there anything wrong with the Russians emphasizing their role in the defeat of the Germans in WWII and the Americans emphasizing theirs?
:detective:

The idea that historians have a prejudiced view of history can only be judged by others. In the end truth should survive and propaganda eliminated. Someone will question the validity of any false claims.

Hollywood has the ability to rewrite history more than academics, we were all convinced the red skin was a heathen and the homesteader a fine example of civilisation. What upsets me is the BBC period dramas where everything is surgically clean, the sight of stinking corpses on gibbets are never seen and the plight of children starving to death, is subject that never occurs for them to film.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;167025 wrote:

The idea that historians have a prejudiced view of history can only be judged by others. In the end truth should survive and propaganda eliminated. Someone will question the validity of any false claims..

You know it is not usually a matter of making false claims. It is more a matter of what facts one includes, and what facts one leaves out. An emphasis or a viewpoint not outright false.
The Russians lost 25 million people in WWII. The Americans lost at the most 300,000 or so. History in American textbooks emphasized the American role and the American viewpoint, whereas Russian history portrays the war from their perspective. They are both telling the truth or at least part of the truth. Frankly I do not think there is anything wrong with that. There are lots of facts, lots of viewpoints, and inevitably some facts are included, others are left out, and a particular viewpoint emerges.
History is as they say written by the winners. The notion of complete impartiality in the presententation of history is a myth itself.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;167020 wrote:

I was wondering how Australian history books portray the interactions with the Australian aboriginal peoples. History is always written from a view point..

There is a vigourous debate in Australian history about views of the Aborigines: very briefly, the 'black armband' view which portrays the treatment of Aborigines in the colonial era very harshly. This has been challenged by a (right wing?) historian called Keith Windschuttle who believes the black armband view is grossly exaggerated.

be that as it may, nobody disputes that the Aborigines suffered dreadfully during the convict era, when they were treated more or less as vermin, and were decimated by the introduction of European diseases and alcohol. Most are in a very sorry state today. Their treatment and living conditions are still controversial.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero wrote:

there is still something special about America.

kennethamy wrote:

We are certainly an exceptional people

I am grateful for your responses to this thread, and hope that the following is not taken as some form of attack, but more a needing of clarification.

For example, I appreciate that some Americans truly believe themselves and their nation to be outstanding and exceptional. Just as I appreciate some French, Germans, Italians, Iranians, and Iraqis say very much the same thing of themselves and of their nation. But why should we grant this sentiment any privileged status other than being a mere chauvinistic stance pretty much common throughout the world?

prothero wrote:

It does not have to do with racial superiority at all.

kennethamy wrote:

We are certainly an exceptional people, but the cause of that is not racial.

I have no idea how you guys are using the term 'race'. It's a dubious signifier and usually used in an arbitrary manner. Nevertheless, socially speaking, which I believe this thread is all about, I'm working along the idea of "a vast group of people loosely bound together by historically contingent, socially significant structures, systems and codes within the same nation-state." And I don't think this is an unorthodox working-definition of the social status of the term 'race'. To this extent, when an American says something like, "Americans are exceptional." Or, "Americans are exceptional people." How else is this suppossed to be understood other than the promise of buying into the socially conscructed notion of race superiority?

kennethamy wrote:

American is an exceptional country in origin, in conception, in its history, and in its present role in the world.

But doesn't every chauvinistic fanatic say the same of 'their' nation? If we substituted the word, 'American' (America) for something a Stalin, Hitler, Franco would have used when referring to their own nation, is there not the chilling suspicion that this entire thesis about American Exceptionalism and Americans as the exceptional people as being no more than jingoistic, idolatrous worship?

2 Replies

@qualia,

qualia;167122 wrote:

But doesn't every chauvinistic fanatic say the same of 'their' nation? If we substituted the word, 'American' (America) for something a Stalin, Hitler, Franco would have used when referring to their own nation, is there not the chilling suspicion that this entire thesis about American Exceptionalism and Americans as the exceptional people as being no more than jingoistic, idolatrous worship?

You would have that chilling suspicion if you took the shallow view, and didn't look at the country in depth and at the persons reasons for believing it (and if you were paranoid about patriotism for some reason).

But to go beyond suspicion and reach a conclusion would require a careful examination of what is meant.

0 Replies

@qualia,

qualia;167122 wrote:

I But doesn't every chauvinistic fanatic say the same of 'their' nation? If we substituted the word, 'American' (America) for something a Stalin, Hitler, Franco would have used when referring to their own nation, is there not the chilling suspicion that this entire thesis about American Exceptionalism and Americans as the exceptional people as being no more than jingoistic, idolatrous worship?

I would say that it is not about race at all, it is about the nation, and its position and role and influence in the world
Rome was exceptional in its time
Greece was exceptional in its time
Great Britian was exceptional in its time.
So it is not like America is the only exceptional nation in history but at this time America's role in the world makes it exceptional.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;167023 wrote:

That sounds like an argument for teaching creationism in school.

No, because the hypothesis of Creationism has no initial probability, but American exceptionalism does have a great deal of initial probability.

1 Reply

@qualia,

Well at the moment, America could have an enormous influence, if it can teach the world how to (1) reign in energy consumption, so as not to deplete our natural resources and pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and (2) reform the financial markets in such a way as to prevent excessive public and private indebtedness from causing financial calamity and (3) demonstrate how democratically elected governments can ensure greater social equity and prosperity for every citizen.

If America could do this, it would indeed be exceptional.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;167186 wrote:

No, because the hypothesis of Creationism has no initial probability, but American exceptionalism does have a great deal of initial probability.

No, it doesn't at all.

0 Replies

@qualia,

Read an amusing quip recently 'War is God's way of teaching the Americans geography'. I think there is some truth in it too.:bigsmile:

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167211 wrote:

Well at the moment, America could have an enormous influence, if it can teach the world how to (1) reign in energy consumption, so as not to deplete our natural resources and pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and (2) reform the financial markets in such a way as to prevent excessive public and private indebtedness from causing financial calamity and (3) demonstrate how democratically elected governments can ensure greater social equity and prosperity for every citizen.

If America could do this, it would indeed be exceptional.

I thought you began with saying that America could do these things. I imagine what you mean is that if American would do them, it would be exceptional. Well, that assumes that these goals are worth doing, and, of course, that America is not exceptional unless it does them. Large assumptions.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167211 wrote:

Well at the moment, America could have an enormous influence, if it can teach the world how to (1) reign in energy consumption, so as not to deplete our natural resources and pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and (2) reform the financial markets in such a way as to prevent excessive public and private indebtedness from causing financial calamity and (3) demonstrate how democratically elected governments can ensure greater social equity and prosperity for every citizen.

If America could do this, it would indeed be exceptional.

Well I would agree Jeeprs, that America could use its enormous economic power, cultural influence and military capabilities to much greater and much better effect. Your statement however implies that American example and American action in the world have greater effects than those of most other countries.
We do not get an A for the ways in which we have used our influence and power, we just get one for having them.

We can certainly develop alternative energy sources, conserve better and I suspect as cheap oil is depleted we will. We can certainly reign in public institutions from excessive gambling with other peoples money and I suspect we will. We can certainly provide more equal opportunity, and better identification of the talented and motivated regardless of race or social class and provide them with a better chance for education and success. I suspect the American attitude that equal opportunity does not ensure equal success and that differences in performance justify differences in rewards which preserve incentive, innovation and motivation will remain.

With great power comes great responsiblity and we have not always lived up to our responsiblities as well as we should. The US role in the promotion of representative goverment, ideas about human rights, human liberties, intervention in WWII and in standing up to totalitarian socialism should not be forgotten, however. It is as I say, not an unblemished record, but the world would be a much different place without the US. If you were ranking countries by their overall influence on world affairs in the last century or two, I am not sure who you would place in front of the US and I suspect that will remain for another century or two (assuming we can rise to some of the challenges you suggest).

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 08:32 AM ----------

jeeprs;167229 wrote:

Read an amusing quip recently 'War is God's way of teaching the Americans geography'. I think there is some truth in it too.:bigsmile:

A little too correct. The numbers of Americans who can find Iraq or Afghanistan and a blank map is frightening. You know the claim for American exceptionalism is not about Americans being brighter or individually superior in any way. It is about the overall economic influence, political clout and military might of the nation. It could well be seen as an accident of history and of fortunate geographical location. It is just an acknowledgement of the US role in the world in current times. The word offends but political correctness should not mean the denial of reality.

0 Replies

@qualia,

In my opinion, the United States has already done enormous good to the world. But I really do not see the world rushing to aid the United States nor much gratitude for what has already been done. It might be well for the United States to confine its attention to those nations that are glad of it, and let the others fend for themselves for a while. It might do them good. It will certainly do the United States good.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;167307 wrote:

In my opinion, the United States has already done enormous good to the world. But I really do not see the world rushing to aid the United States nor much gratitude for what has already been done. It might be well for the United States to confine its attention to those nations that are glad of it, and let the others fend for themselves for a while. It might do them good. It will certainly do the United States good.

I think thats unfair considering our commitment to America in possibly three wars, at least. I dont underestimate the good that America has done but should that change my view of historic facts. Considering you stole half a continent from us, I think we, the english, have a very balanced view.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;167346 wrote:

I think thats unfair considering our commitment to America in possibly three wars, at least. I dont underestimate the good that America has done but should that change my view of historic facts. Considering you stole half a continent from us, I think we, the english, have a very balanced view.

Your commitment to America. You seem to have it backwards.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;167346 wrote:

I think thats unfair considering our commitment to America in possibly three wars, at least. I dont underestimate the good that America has done but should that change my view of historic facts. Considering you stole half a continent from us, I think we, the english, have a very balanced view.

You know England has a remarkable history.
The legacy of the English Empire is the US, Australia, Canada, India, etc some of the worlds best representative governments and countries that support human dignity and human rights.

America was the only country to break away from the British Empire by force of arms and if Clinton had sailed for Virginia instead of enjoying himself in New York while Cornwallis was pleading for assistance, who knows?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;167349 wrote:

Your commitment to America. You seem to have it backwards.

So our involvement in Korea , Iraq and Afghanistan means nothing? on occassions we have been your only ally so dont be so ungrateful.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 01:04 PM ----------

prothero;167350 wrote:

You know England has a remarkable history.
The legacy of the English Empire is the US, Australia, Canada, India, etc some of the worlds best representative governments and countries that support human dignity and human rights.

America was the only country to break away from the British Empire by force of arms and if Clinton had sailed for Virginia instead of enjoying himself in New York while Cornwallis was pleading for assistance, who knows?

Who knows, if we had not been fighting the French at the same time or if Washington had not aggravated the French while fighting for England. I might be governor general. :bigsmile:

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;167357 wrote:

So our involvement in Korea , Iraq and Afghanistan means nothing? on occassions we have been your only ally so dont be so ungrateful.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 01:04 PM ----------

:bigsmile:

But we saved your bacon in 1917, 1940's, and then again with the Marshall Plan. Speaking of gratitude. Next time, we'll pull the plug and let the island sink.

1 Reply

Rewriting U.S.A History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know