A reader posted that he believed every society to be “exceptional” and I have to say that this is the issue with declaring something exceptional. This entire issue is about cultural relativism. Which is fine if we do not “judge” any culture, but that’s not the case. Do we simply shrug off the continual treatment of women in most Muslim countries and say well, that’s just their culture. But that is not what happens, it’s about “compassion” for the ways of others and intolerance for our own mistakes. One would say, how can we criticize Muslim nations when we ourselves denied women the vote for so long? How can we criticized when we dealt in slavery for so long? How can we when…well, you get the picture. It’s as if because we have not been perfect, well who are we? There are differences in culture and some are frankly far below any kind of acceptable let alone exceptional status.
“There are differences in culture and some are frankly far below any kind of acceptable let alone exceptional status.”
Precisely, which is the same point I was making in my comment in your AE Part II post. Isn’t it ironic that others are so opposed to AE, yet always look to us to respond to every disaster on every occasion at every corner of the globe? No other nation, historically, has had the resources nor the compassion to do that. We are exceptional and we’ve proven it time and time again.
Chris,
You missed my point (I used the word exceptional placed within quotation marks), and perhaps that is my fault for not being clear enough. The very act of studying, or teaching, History is an exercise in examining the uniqueness, the “exceptionality,” of the subject studied, its unique development through time. “American Exceptionalism” is a concept, influential in Americans’ self-understanding, and its history should be taught as such, and not as objective fact. There is a difference between historical interpretation and cheerleading. A teacher might raise the question with students, in a comparative way, as to the validity of claims about American Exceptionalism, but it should not be used as the implicit paradigm for teaching U.S. history. That is ideology masquerading as history. This also goes for the teaching of U.S., or any other history, as the unfolding of some god’s plan. That is theology masquerading as history. What would you say if someone asserted that Manifest Destiny should be used as an objective principle for interpreting American history? So, as I stated above, you misunderstood what I was saying, and also what Kevin Levin was saying, and apparently saw it as some kind of unpatriotic attack on America. Some of the comments here and on Kevin’s blog reflect nothing more than the “Clash of Civilizations” mentality that seems to flare up over topics like this in the post-9/11 world.
Marc
The substance of this comment–and indeed of Mr. Levin’s post–is quite clear. Do you really fail to understand, or are you simply creating a straw man so that you then have something to rail against?
Just to make certain, let me explain it to you once more. The United States is a unique country. So too is England. So too is France. So too is Saudi Arabia, and China, and Japan, and Brazil. Nobody disagrees with this, and it is perfectly legitimate to explore those unique characteristics, to understand their genesis, and to consider how they have shaped the history of a nation, regardless of which nation it is.
What the commenter–and, again, Mr. Levin–are pointing out is that it’s not terribly intellectual or scientific to assume that one nation’s unique qualities–in this case, the United States’s–make that nation better than or more worthy than or more valuable than or superior to other nations. If you want to believe that the United States is a better nation than others–perhaps even the “best” nation–you are free to feel that way, but that is an opinion, and not a fact that can be supported with analysis.
Christopher:
“Unique” does not carry the same meaning, in the context being discussed, as does “exceptional.”
Jeffrey Dalhmer was a “unique” human being, but I would not describe him as “exceptional.” The connotation of the word exceptional, for our purposes, is “positive” and “superior.”
“It’s not terribly intellectual or scientific to assume that one nation’s unique qualities–in this case, the United States’s–make that nation better than or more worthy than or more valuable than or superior to other nations.”
It most certainly is and that is the rub, no straw man here, sir. The US is most assuredly more superior than Cuba or a whole list of others that could be named. I find your position, with all due respect, ridiculous.
The US has been, comparatively speaking, the freest and most prosperous in world history. Suggesting that is “not a fact that can be supported with analysis” is, once again, ridiculous. China? Saudi Arabia? You can’t be serious.
Marc, where did I say or imply that Levin was making an “unpatriotic attack on America.” I accused him of being arrogant and hypocritical.
Bates, you said, “that it’s not terribly intellectual or scientific to assume that one nation’s unique qualities–in this case, the United States’s–make that nation better than or more worthy than or more valuable than or superior to other nations.”
I know, I need to bash America to be intellectual. I make this remark in exhaustion as I cannot respond in any other manner. You’re just a smarter person than I.
\Chris
Think you may enjoy this article. I think it may add something to your debate, or maybe not, but I enjoyed the commentary and thought I would put it out there.
http://republicanredefined.com/2009/10/12/resurrecting-american-civil-religion/