Talk:American exceptionalism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Ethnocentricity of Previous Exceptionalist cultures

I'm a bit confused about this. The article mentions that Romans, Chinese, Germans, Poles etc are all based on a single Ethnic culture. I'm not quite sure that is true about the Romans and Chinese. Heck, the idea of "Ethnic Culture" seems a bit contentious. Weren't European powers essentially mixing cultures between and among themselves? Was Rome's expansionist philosophy based on the superiority of the Romans themselves? Didn't they assimilate the greeks? China is one of the largest and most diverse "ethnic groups" in Asia - covering much of what you would recognize as Russians, Muslims, Indians, Aryans. The fact that a greater concentration of particular ethnic groups in-power for them exist doesn't mean that they are based on the superiority of that ethnic group per se. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.234.218 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

POVness

On February 18th, Stevertigo made a major series of changes to this page that, in my opinion, were completely POV. I reverted the page to before these edits took place but moved back into the article usefull information (not written by Stevertigo) about the Marxist view of this idea.

My problems with the edited page:

The title ethnocentrism limited the concept of American exceptionalism to a racial one when it can be seen as social, cultural, and political as well
The use of quotes when describing American exceptionalism ideas throughout the page mocked the idea
The tone and content of the page was distorted to create a strong view against the concept

I'd love for you to put back in some of the ideas about race/ethnicity in American exceptionalism - I myself will start that process. However, please respond on the talk page before editing. --Alex S 17:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didnt see this when it happened. I dont think the above criticisms are right or wrong, nor relevant spefic to the article as it is today, but its not typical that we write in such a passive voice that 'Stalinism' for example might seem perfectly acceptible, as long as it was in context. Thus why would an "exceptionalist" view of another kind be defended with an only self-serving interpretation of NPOV? -Stevertigo 06:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When discussing issues such as this that people often feel very strongly about, it can be easy to lose sight of what the purpose of the article should be. In my view, an article on American exceptionalism should discuss the claims of American exceptionalists and present counter-arguments, but the counter-arguments should challenge the idea that America is exceptional, not the idea that the products of the exceptionalism are desirable. The latter properly belongs in Anti-American sentiment.

(( Um, I'm not quite sure how to put this, but America *is* exceptional. It's status as sole superpower is unique, it's economy the largest in the world, and it's society is not quite like any other. It may not be apparent why the US deviates from many global norms in so many ways (our disinterest in 'football' is minor but notable), but that it is an exception to many global 'norms' is indisputable.

-Rosignol@nwlink.com ))

-America is indeed powerfull, but that does not make it exceptional... Greece was once the sole superpower of the Ancient World. So sole superpowerdom is not unprecedented.

And America is indeed unique, culturally and socially, but so are many other nations. If you don't think so you need to get out more!

And as for your disinterest in football: 1) That's not quite the case, ever since World Cup 94' the sports popularity is growing in the US. 2) Not being good at it is not a positive trait in a country. :) hehehe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.218.119 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For instance, David Monniaux added a bit about how homosexual sex was only recently decriminalized in many U.S. states as a counter-argument to how the American system prevents a "tyranny of the majority". This example, however, actually supports American exceptionalism: It shows that states which held the minority view (on a national scale) that homosexual sex was a social ill were allowed to keep laws that reflected that minority view. An idea behind federalism is that if you don't like the laws in one state, you can go to a state that's more accepting of your opinions. David (and I) happen to think that these laws were prejudicial and were right to have been overturned, but the fact that they still were valid in the 21st century provides ammunition with which to criticize the social values in parts of America, but not with which to debunk American exceptionalism.

It may be a valid criticism of American culture that it has in general a more "backward" view of homosexuality, but it isn't fair to criticize American exceptionalism on the basis of this exogenous factor.

I think the current formulation is quite good. I don't quite buy personally the argument that one may move to another state if one disagrees with the policies of one's states. After all, this was somewhat true of a large part of the world save for the closed "Communist" countries. Yet, having to relocate because of abusive, intolerant decisions from the majority is clearly a hardship. David.Monniaux 17:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And indeed it is the slogan of the intolerant "If you don't like it move to f***in' Russia." etc. Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work

Unless credit is given to scholars like Seymour Martin Lipset for this concept this article is merely a personal essay. I agree with VeryVerily that this article needs a lot of work (see page history as of now). 172 19:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VV removed a lot of text, which was flawed. However, I don't know if it's utterly unsalvageable. Perhaps someone familiar with the relevant scholarly literature can fix it up and restore it. ([1]) I'd do it if I did not have to finish a couple of other articles instead. 172 20:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have restored it, and will clean it up. VeryVerily's hack job was unjustified, and his comments about it being a "personal essay" are no doubt an attack on me; rather than actually dealing with the material itself, (which apparently doesnt fit his narrow concept of what the article should be about) he has chosen the typically obtuse method of deleting material, rather than actually editing it. One would have hoped that VeryVerily might have become an editor by now. What say you VeryVerily? -Stevertigo 06:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I never said it was a "personal essay", and it was not an attack on you. As for your attack on me, it just bores me. Here are a few examples from the text which are problematic:

American exceptionalism, as an ideology, is dissectable into its components of capitalism, personal liberty, and expansionism.

Is it really? How is expansionism part of the ideology of exceptionalism? And what about ethnic nationalism? Democracy? Limited government? This reductionist approach does not look promising.-VV

Verily Verily is the jingoist mascot, I have run across his ditrades in all of the controversial wikipedia pages. He erases a lot of valuable information, and then attacks the authors. Problem is he never actually ADDS anything of value to the articles. List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 (for example) He is better ignored as a troll.

Did I say it was perfect? What else would you add VV, and why didnt you? This notion of "limited government" is simply a propagandism; if you can write the article, and explain in logical terms how this ideology would have any material effect in the Old World that was equivalent its so-called effect on the US, then there would be something there. As it stands, you cannot extricate "limited government" from the context of "American expansionism," nor even from the alternate interpretations of what the term "limited government" really means. Would you like me to explain that to you too? Try to use less subjective terms to describe this "exceptionally" subjective term. -SV

V V You did not "say it was perfect" per se, but you wrote it in the article as though it were definitive and in compliance with the NPOV policies of this encyclopedia, which it is not. Your "propagandism" talk is neither here nor there, as we are not endorsing exceptionalism (nor seeking to rebut it).

(V V 08:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) To reiterate my point, my quarrel was that "this reductionist approach does not look promising", so asking me what to "add" is of course off.)

See my comment on "off (topic)" below... -SV

Because American existence as an influential and powerful society is due to its vast resources...

Is that all it is? How about solid alliances and past victories? A healthy distance from the theaters of WW2? Its large cultural output? Its progressive ideas of individual liberty? And by resources do you mean natural resources or just wealth? By the way, those sentences are missing verbs. -VV

Im sorry if the basic truths sort of shake your nuanced and glorfied image of what things are and how they came to be. The fact of the matter remains that the US to this day depends on land division and development to sustain its growing (expansionist) economy. Do you disagree? Perhaps you think it was "good old fashioned American ingenuity" that drove the show? "Victories?" Subjectivity! What does "victories" mean here? The ethnic cleansing of Native American populations were considered "victories" at the time; is that what you meat by "victories"? You bring up the role of individual choices in shaping destiny; as much as Im a true believer in the butterfly effect, one cant possibly begin to quantize such nuance, nor can they expect to bundle up all these disordered and separated decisions into a single ideological package, and not be criticised for its POV! Talk about things being temporally distant from each other?-SV

V V I don't think I'm going to bother trying to respond to you anymore, as this is excessive ad hominem. What do you know about my "glorified image" of anything? Anyway, NPOV policies say you are not entitled to use this article as a podium for your personal opinions.

I will not argue with you either. Either you can deal with the citique point by point, or it remains invalid. NPOV does not bound us to keep articles bland, confused, conflicted or even stupid. So, if you want to write a support for the notions expressed in "exceptionalism" please do so; the article can represent both the criticism, and the support. If you support does not match my criticism, well thats no reason to delete the criticism. I agree that criticism/refutation could be separately contained, but you cant possibly be saying that observations and material facts from the last 140 years cant reshape the very way in which the article is presented. I do not intend to mock the notion; I simply intent to show that subjective terms like "personal freedom" are either in quotes, replaced with neutral terms, or put into some context - rather than just being thrown out there, expecting the reader to be Fox-News literate. -Stevertigo 19:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even long before the United States ever came into being, the very discovery of the New World brought a stir to the old, that sparked renaissance of ideas regarding wealth, society, government, liberty, and even God.

Oh, so that's what caused it. How simple! (And relevance?)-VV

If you have a better reason to challenge this other than simplicy, I would like to hear it. Im sure its very long and involved though. While simple has the burden of appearing simplistic, it at least demands that you demonstrate in simple terms, how "simple" is incorrect. "Relevance" is the context, under which the cultural lore of "American ingenuity" "American know how," "the American way" and the "exceptional American" came to be.-SV

V V It is ridiculous to impute all of Europe's evolution of ideas to the discovery of the Americas; you may as well say it was all due to the Fall of Constantinople. And if what actually happened is not relevant, it should not be in the article at all, as it probably shouldn't be.

(BTW, I never wrote that "all of Europe's evolution of ideas" were attributable to the discovery of the Americas.) This is really really basic history; I dont see how anyone who gives it a moments thought can dispute it. We impart events and chains of events to catalytic events and discoveries; it is always subjective. In this case, we are dealing with two competing subjective views; "exceptionalism" versus "expansionism" Knowing what you do about human nature, which do you imagine is the more realistic and practical explanation. "Exceptionalism" which is an outdated attempt to unify a whole bunch of ideas as 'catalyzing events' that themselves fall under a general theory, or "expansionism" which simply explains that people tend to gravitate to where less hardship, more space, more food, and more easy living is. I thought conservatives liked practical explanations.-Stevertigo 19:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After the dissolution of Britain's corporate rulership, the War of Independence, and numerous territorial disputes, treaties, and purchases, (Spain, France, Russia, Mexico, etc.), the basic design for what was to be the United States' territory was outlined.

These are rather temporally disparate events, and I don't see the connection of the East India company, either. Nor do I see what this has to do with exceptionalism.-VV

In giving a general history of the world, one can jump quite a ways; does this mean that the information is not valid, or useful to give perspective? To say that one fails to understand how American history is related to American lore about its history is kind of like saying "I dont know how God has anything to with a discussion of Jesus," or "I fail to see how Superman is relevant to Spider-Man. Only by the subjective rules of the lore itself is the context irrelevant. By any other standard, including NPOV, and encyclopedia material, they are not irrelevant.-SV

V V You were claiming to locate an event in time, but gave a smattering of disparate events. Like most of your comments, everything else you say is off topic.

Im sure you mean off-topic in the same way "travel abroad" and "starvation" are "off-topic" in North Korea, but I can only go on impressions, since your responses are so lacking of material to deal with. -Stevertigo 19:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because the existing powers needed the services of (and preferred the company of) Europeans, preexisting Old World restrictions on social class and status were overlooked.

Is that all it was? Nothing about many of them deliberately fleeing such restrictions, or disbelieving in them on principle? And what does the parenthetical have to do with this? And were they overlooked everywhere, including, say, Virginia? -VV

The advent of Labor unions would be the culmination of the cultural mythos of freedom, with the practical reality that labor can, in a new and limited society, control their destinty to a large degree.

The culmination? Labor controlling their destiny..., I'm speechless.

Are you so blind as to expect that your simplistic and reflexist prejudice toward organized labor be unchallenged? I'm not saying labor unions are Gods gift; rather that people like yourself should perhaps entertain the thought that 6 year old kids would still be working overtime in polluted and abusive sweatshops, were it not for organized labor. Start with that thought, and then consider how things developed up until Enron/Arthur Andersen; being the latest incident where this self-delusional notion of business benevolence was completely and indesputably refuted (except among the comatose or otherwise unaware) -SV

V V What view exactly are you imputing to me anyway? Your psychic abilities clearly outstrip mine, otherwise I'd have any idea what in hell you think these comments have to do with anything. V V 08:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The controlled, incentivised, distribution of the land's ownnership would be the single material driving force behind America's development, overshadowing any moralistic or ideaological claims of influence. Regardless of the ideology, the reality of colonialism dictated that there be a shift in culture values, leaning toward the practical and the simple.

Okay, I can't take anymore. V V 13:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand that your brain hurts, VV. Think of it like riding a bicycle to get into shape; the hills will be a strain the first couple times, and you will say "I cant take it anymore" - just keep it up, and the hills will seem like a piece of cake. But two weeks out of the routine, they say is like having to start all over again. :( -Stevertigo 07:48, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for deigning to extend a hand to a dunce like me. If only more geniuses could be like you! V V 08:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's de-politicize this discussion, shall we? This doesn't need to be a divisive subject. This article just needs more attributions to scholars from Tocqueville to Lipset, that's it. 172 13:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For a start, someone who knows more than most about American exceptionalism should divide the article into many sections and sub-sections. Then we will have manageable paragraphs to work with. Mat334 07:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Longevity table

This table is bound to be debatable. It is impossible to compare ancient Egypt with colonial empires, let alone with a twentieth century state. There are no universal criteria to measure the influence of any given nation. Even the longevity itself is problematic: for most countries only the period they were a 'great power' seems to be counted. Or is it the time they felt 'exceptional?' Both criteria are quite arbitrary and need explanation. Even if the table remains in the article, something more should be said about these problems. - Djadek 09:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And someone has laughably confused the Franks (and several other nations) with the French in dating the beginning of the "French Kingdom" to Clovis. - Nunh-huh 22:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. This table is quite nonsensical. David.Monniaux 10:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we remove this table. Many "Empires" are missing, where is China? Where are the Spaniards and the Portugese in the 16th century? Bontenbal 22:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not see the connection between longevity and the topic of the article. I support the deletion of the table. It is not thoroughly done, anyway, and at best at a draft stage. Robbe007, 17 Nov 2004

All these points are valid. A longevity table is fairly useless. However, a table of other empires that have considered themselves to be exceptional is useful. This table could just happen to list approximate dates during which the empire considered itself to be exceptional. Mat334 07:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. It is part of the concept of a nation that it is exceptional in comparison with other nations. Otherwise there would be no purpose in having any at all. Additionally, the table contains false facts, such as the duration of the "French kingdom" (see France). Also, it implies completeness but omits important nations. While interesting by itself, I think that the table does not help understanding the concept of American Exceptionalism. robbe 14:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If what you say is true, that "it is part of the concept of a nation that it is exceptional in comparison with other nations", then this table is useful. The table is relevant to the argument against American exceptionalism. It supports the idea that America is not exceptional by showing that there are other empires that have considered themselves to be exceptional. Because Wikipedia is NPOV we need to include all points of view. This table supports a particular point of view and so we should keep it. Just because has factual inaccuracies or is incomplete does not mean that we should delete it. If that were the case then half of Wikipedia would be deleted. No, instead we need to verify the table and expand it. Therefore keep the table. Mat334 17:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove it. After all, it has been months since my first comment on this issue, and most of those who reacted agreed it should be removed.

Mat334: It is not because I disagree with the point the table tries to make that I want it to be removed; on the contrary, personally I agree with you that the United States are not that exceptional. But still, it's a nonsensical table, unfitting for an encyclopedia, for several reasons.

1 It is impossible to compare the influence of old civilizations like Rome and Egypt with European colonial powers or with modern states. Even if you try to do this, it would be very arbitrary and you would need an explanation far too long to put it in a table like this.

2 The same is true for exceptionalism: you can't measure it, so putting it in a table is misleading.

3 Then there is the point of the longevity. One would say this must be measurable - but as others stated above, it is hard to determine the start and the end for an empire. Is the kingdom of the Franks the same nation that conquered Egypt centuries later? I don't think you can say that, but others will disagree. Pastinakel 12:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of oldest things

Someone (MeltBanana) sensibly changed "has the oldest" to "it claims to have the oldest" (or words to that effect) . I have inserted a few challenges to these claims, and a few references supporting them. However a better wording is needed at the top, if indeed this section is worth keeping. "America claims" really means nothing in this context. Perhaps "Some claim" .... Rich Farmbrough 09:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete "In historical context"

That whole ridiculous section In historical context could be removed from the article, making it much shorter and more readable, without losing anything. V V 09:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In two months there has been virtually no improvement. It reads too much like a essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Very Verily 13:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can there really be no-one whose knowledge of the concept of American exceptional surpasses that of most? All we really need is for someone to have a shot at dividing everything into manageable sections. Mat334 07:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It really reads like an essay. While it always hurts to delete anything that was written, massively shortening the article would certrainly improve the encyclopedianess of the page. Is there any way of putting all the material on an external page and linking to it? robbe 14:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't put all of the material on an external page and link to it. Instead we should delete all phrases that are explained elsewhere - particularly the historical content. I suggest that someone with knowledge on the subject breaks the page down into sections and sub-sections in order to make it easier to work with. This would also break it down from an essay. Mat334 17:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

American Exceptionalism Exists Today

I think most Europeans would disagree. Until the 1950s America may have been unrivalled in opportunities, but now European countries are far more socially mobile. The US has a high poverty rate compared to countries like the UK and Germany, there is no free health system and higher education system is too expensive. Land of opportunity? I would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's Be Truthful for Once!

One of the devastating facts about Americans is their denial of the unkind and injust treatment of people that historically EuroAmericans believe inferior. This nation has a black spot on its soul for the genocide and encampment of the surviving Native Americans. The manifest destiny arose long ago because of the ignorance, sinful nature, greed, and lack of conscious of the white man. From generation to generation, the sons gleefully took their inheritances of their fathers, secured by stealing, exploiting, killing, enslaving, and the sweat of people of color. Whites ignored God's commandments they are arrogant and think that their actions are above the sins of other men It is easy for them to justify their actions because of the false belief that they are superior. Indians were human when Columbus stumbled upon the West Indies. Yet, He and his fellowmen were too prejudice and evil to acknowledge it. (The land was occupied by humans whose culture, language, and ethnicity was different. They were human). The barbarians were the Europeans who had no regard for the lives of others, so they massacred, tortured, and stole the resources and land from a gentle people. Man's Christianity was not the Truth, and differed from God's Word or Christian faith. Ironically, the Indians were held as inhuman, but the Church demanded that the Indians convert. Today, the average white man still believes he is superior to people of color. They also still believe that the world evolves around them, rather than accept that they too on earth for a short time along with all other people. They are still ignorant, frightened of men of color, and will still exploit others. What is lacking in their souls is compassion, love, and concern for all humankind. Just live among them as a person of a beautiful golden brown complexion and learn the degree of hate, hostility, and superiority that they possess. They will not accept the faults of their forefathers or apologize for the grave sins of the forefathers. The assets are acceptable but not the liabilities.

Please DON'T keep blaming Europeans for American sins. The Americans repeatedly point out how they rejected European control to go it alone, and by the same token, let them stand up to their faults alone. The vast marjority of these sins were carried out after the US became an independent nation - in fact the rejection of British control came partly because they Government stopped them taking more Indian land. Therefore Europe has nothing to do with it. --User:WashingtonWasATwat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wah. --Looper5920 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's possibly the most racist rant I've ever heard. He who disparages whites' actions against the native peoples of this continent is willing to project the faults of a few onto the broad whole of the white population. And, for the record, American exceptionalism is not about whites being superior; is about the ideological and divine superiority of the United States as a nation.

SwedishConqueror 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Sure! Blame it all on whitey... "What is lacking in their (white mens) souls is compassion, love, and concern for all humankind." Who are you calling racist again? Whites, and particularly white males are bereft of love and compassion? Fuck you, you racist, misandric cunt! Yes, racism against whites is still racism... the problem is not being white, it's about resources and opportunities, the Europeans dominated and persecuted other peoples because they had the means to... or do you think the Aztecs and Incas lived so peacefully and harmoniously that they would never have subjugated anyone had they had the technological advances necessary to do so? They were human just like the Europeans... and had they been in the Europeans shoes in that particular time in History they would have acted in the exact same way... also I would like to stress that while europeans where living in tribal, and relatively free societies, slavery and imperialism was being practiced widely in Asia and the Middle East...

says who? that's the problem with this article.

stay on topic

lets be concise. Discuss american exceptionalism as an ideal. Next offer the opposing POV which should be that america is NOT , in fact, exceptional by this criteria. History can be offered but not to advance a narrative of america as good or bad. The history should describe what the ideal first was, and what it has evolved to be. Do not lose sight of the topic. Do not lose sight of what the pro and con positions are (re-read first sentences). Keep it in scope.

Let's be Truthful for Once!

While we are being truthful lets talk about the muslim slavers who sold the blacks to the "evil white man." In fact lets look at slavery of africans as a whole. Practiced by muslims throughout their whole existance - even today. In fact the first group to end slavery of africans were the brits. White, Christian, Brits.

Meanwhile the arab muslims continued a practice laid down by their "prophet"

Which is the manmade religion now?

Every religion is man-made, there is no doctrine that we categorise as a religion that has been devised by some animal or other (living) entity.

i cant stand when people compare "Muslims and whites" or "Muslims and Americans." Muslim is a religion, not a race or nationality. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.106.140.254 (talk • contribs) .

If "the white man" was evil (or other generalised sentiments), then I second the reminder that it was the British who abolished slavery first and conduced others to do so (the first time this was done by a major power in world history). Read up on the history of the Royal Navys west Africa squadron and the existance of Sierra Leone. The British may not have a perfect history in this general area, but, when compared with "the white man" who was a US-style patriot then the comparison leaves the British shining in humanity. Read up on the US wages wars in the article on Indian Removal. One of the reasons for the US war of independence was the so-called Intolerable Acts, including the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which sought to limit incursions into American Indian territory. "US patriots" were more interested in a land grab than and high ideal principles, the sort that are trumpeted nowadays as the things that make the US special and great. Perhaps if Americans were fed a more balanced and historically accurate version of their own history they would realise that they are no more special than anyone else. The sooner they understand this the better, as it will make their transition from a world power to being the number 2 (or lower order) in the world pecking order (to China, India et al) much easier to swallow as that happens over the next 50 - 100 years. I do not have much hope - you only have to look at the American election system to see that Americans live more by b/s marketing style "facts" over reasoned argument.

In response to your support by reason of the 'Intolerable Acts', those acts were never put in place to protect the Natives. They were put in simply because Britain did not have the resources to fight more wars with the Indians. The reason they were intolerable is because many of the colonists did not have the resources to live without expanding west, whether it was good for the natives or not.

HAHAHAHAHA so do you think that the slavery abolition was done because the british "shine in humanity"? The United States are contemptible ******* but the UK is just as contemptible as...UK abolished slavery to guarantee the black people at Africa, surely we all know what happenned next to Africa right? The UK explored everybody since they had the strength to do it....why do you think France and some other countries helped in the USA indepedency? The UK left Portugal in RUINS for example...and if it weren't for Gandhi and Nehru and the others I don't know what would have been of India...and what the other guy said about the 'Intolerable Acts' is perfect too...oh man you got to open your eyes...--WagSF 15:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You cannot compare slavery to the imperialism. They are evils, but not equals. Britain abolished slavery because it could no longer be defended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.175.238 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Muslims enslaved Europeans before they enslaved everyone else, and when the whites weren't in good enough supply anymore they simply moved on to the blacks. Surprise of surprises, that those who most often claim discrimination and oppression on the world stage are themselves history's most ignoble tyrants.

SwedishConqueror 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Bush Doctrine

Should Bush Doctrine be added in as having a possible link to American Exceptionalism? Certainly the war for democracy seems to fit.

--

No, that's more of a Wilsonian thing (a particular variety of American political thought) than an American Exceptionalism thing.

As a clumsy way of illustrating the difference: Wilsonian idealism would inspire Americans to think the middle east needs Democracy... American Exceptionalism is what causes Americans to think the US is capable of establishng that Democracy.

They are related, but not the same thing.

Plus, President Bush's tactics have not been at all faithful to American exceptionalism. If anything, he's spurned what the doctrine is truly about: the United States as a non-aggressive protector of liberty and human dignity. His policies are antithetical to what the United States is supposed to represent, not in that he's attempted to spread democracy to the Middle East, but that he's done so by waging a purely offensive war against a country that had not transgressed against the United States, that he's tortured and detained people with no legal right to do so, and that he's betrayed Americans' sacred civil liberties.

We really don't like him.

SwedishConqueror 05:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Is this hopeless?

My thesis: American exceptionalism really exists, even today, but probably to a somewhat lesser extent than years ago, although it is hard to tell it at times in the conduct of American foreign policy. There are relatively few Americans today (although they certainly exist) who still attempt to justify slavery, the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of settlers, or even the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans, and it is arguable that all of the above discredit the idea of America being exceptional, but probably not entirely. It still seems that after all of the edit wars that the article is still basically a fairly Marxist POV. While the Marxist critique of American exceptionalism belongs in the article, along with other critiques, this should not provide the underlying framework, but seemingly now it still does. It looks like after all of the sound and fury that everyone gave up, which is unfortunate, as apparently lots of heat got generated, but little light, and Wikipeida is saddled with a long-lasting article that is seriously POV. Anyone want to try again, or is it not worth the effort? Rlquall 11:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

A big reason why the article is currently garbage is because it contains no source citations. Without citations, any controversial topic on Wikipedia turns into an amateurish, opinion piece tug-of-war. Until someone gets serious about enforcing that policy, which is a lot of work, then there's probably little hope for the article. My advice to whoever wants to "fix" this article: remove every single undocumented passage, revert every single undocumented addition. Build from there. --Kevin Myers 23:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's still a bit Marxist. This IS wikipeida, after all.

No, this is not hopeless. America is still exceptional enough to stand above international law. International war tribunals concern not Americans. The mistake is to look at this as some sort of blame game, and usually America is to be blamed. American exceptionalism can only exist if the world accepts it. And nothing makes America more exceptional than Europeans with no self-respect. Americans only have to say they are exceptional and Europeans bend over and prove they are. Case in point: The EU is the world's biggest, most important market. But even Europeans think the small and irrelevant Chinese market is more important than they will ever be!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.175.238 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

As an American who strongly subscribes to the theories of Manifest Destint and American exceptionalism, I can assure you that the latter does in fact still exist. And, per the post above: Europeans with short historical memories should not be so ready to denounce America as a fascist empire due to the intemperate actions of one idiotic President who barely anyone likes anyway, who had to lie and cheat his way into the office in the first place, and, thanks be to God, will be gone in two years.

SwedishConqueror 06:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

What is "exceptional" in this context

The word has two related meanings:

One meaning is "different" or "unique", obviously derived from "exception".

The other meaning is similar to "excellent".

The US is certainly unique in many respects; but I don't think that the US is unique in being unique. All nations have their foibles and follies; the US is no different. :) Of course, being a superpower causes the pecularities of the US to be magnified and more likely noticed than those of say, Greece.

As far as excellence goes? Depends on to whom you speak; and in what way. The US is obviously a military and economic superpower; its citizens enjoy a rather good standard of living; and many seek to emigrate here. OTOH, there are many things to criticize; some of them are moral outrages which should offend any human being; others are essentially matters of taste (for example, I don't believe the diminished stature of soccer in the US is indicative of anything substantial)

The article, and this discussion, often use the above two meanings in a schizophrenic fashion.

==
Both definitions of the word prove that the idea of exceptionalism is nothing more than the product of an ego-centric worldview. The first meaning of the word applies to any country, and one of the distinghuising parameters (such as size in population or "power") does not augment the other parameters, so the US is in no way more unique than any other country because of its "superpower" status. In the technical sense, where one can define "uniqueness" as the distance between countries in the complete parameter space, there are ones that must be taken as very unique (that are far apart from the mass center of the distribution), because of very specific ethnological and cultural features (for instance some almost vanished african tribes). Most certainly, the US is much closer to many other (mainly called "western") countries in this parameter space and therefore closer to the mass center and hence, less "unique".

The second meaning of the word is dependant on cultural and ideologic background, of what one sees as advantageous or "good things". A strong economy or military power are parameters that are not universally regarded as being "good things". In the kapitalist framework, economy might be imnportant, but there exist other ideologies in which economy is no (or a much less important) parameter. Moreover, one cannot discuss "a good standard of living" without first defining a value system wherein to compare "standards of living". And since the American value system is not universal (seriously!) the whole second meaning of the word 'exceptionalism' is rendered meaningless.

I have to agree with the idea that exceptional doesn't necessarily mean better than, it just means different. And the US is different from most other developed nations in the world in a whole host of things. If you compare public attitudes in the US and Europe on the role of the state, capitalism, religiosity, etc. the differences are night and day Mattm1138 20:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense "differences are night and day". Clearly the person who wrote that comment hasn't travelled much around the world. Political opinion is very varied in North America and in Western Europe. The weightings of the various left/right opinions may be subtly different, and those may be excentuated by different political systems (including the US system which ingrains partisanship). But there is an immense more in common between the peoples of both areas than, say other peoples. Those two areas account for (as a rough guess) a quarter of world population. How about comparing ideals of democracy and human rights that Europeans and Americans broadly share with another quarter of the world population, in the PR China. That might be more worthy of a "night and day" generalisation. But then again, maybe not, because no-one has asked the Chinese for their political opinions of late. I suggest poor generalisations resulting from poor geographical, cultural and factual awareness are taken with a bucketfull of salt.

All wrong

This article just talks about American Exceptionalism as if it were just a continuation of Manifest Destiny theory; they're not at all the same. They mean completely different things; this article needs to be rewritten from scratch, and perhaps Manifest Destiny is foreigners' best way of understanding it, which is, perhaps, why it's viewed as a form of ethnocentrism; that's not at all what it is. Maybe culturocentrism(?). It's also all POV.

confrontation with other national "exceptionalisms"

Wouldn't this article benefit a lot from a confrontation with other national "exceptionalisms"? I'm thinking for instance of the Swiss Sonderfall: A nation that is also based on ideals and not linguo-ethnics, built on direct democracy and neutrality; or German "exceptionalism" with its interesting (though often merciless) history; or, of course, Jewish "exceptionalism".

I think all these phenomenons (and many more of them) are very similar to the American exceptionalism, so a mention of them and a comparison would improve the article. -- j. 'mach' wust ^{ˈtʰɔ̝ːk͡x} 09:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

American Values

Should American values really redirect to this page? I don't think you need to be a believer in "American exceptionalism" to believe that American culture prioritizes certain values that are not necessarily as high a priority in other cultures. It's pretty common, for instance, to hear Canadians contrast the "Canadian values" (that phrase is taken directly from this Wikipedia article) of peace, order and good government with the United States' priorities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 68.226.239.73 05:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

(mostly) fixed in my opinion

There were a few very good NPOV points made in the otherwise rambling tangential un-neutral POV first section. Deleting it entirely was bad because those points would disappear. Keeping it in as-is was bad too because of its POV, so it just seemed to sit there and stink up the article for a long time. I reworked the neutral points that section made into a (hopefully) much more NPOV section that incorporates other parts of the article. Most of that section was deleted and I justified each deletion in my edit summaries.

The entire article still has problems...like some repetition with for/against arguments in the history section and (more importantly maybe) a lack of expert opinions or references to them, but as long as NPOV is maintained, I hope knowledgeable folks (who can keep in check the axe they want to grind) will come here with their footnotes eventually and make the thing better. This is a really important topic. Show some restraint about what you put in there, and leave the article better than when you arrived. Flying Jazz 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Werner Sombart

There should probably be some discussion or reference or link to Werner Sombart's "Why is there No Socialism in the United States?", which was an influential background to a lot of the scholarly debate on the subject in the first half of the 20th century... AnonMoos 18:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add it. You are more familar with it than anyone.Travb 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt if I ever read the whole thing, and I haven't read any part of it for at least 15 years. But it's important to this page... AnonMoos 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you attempting to say?

I moved this sentence to talk:

Some of the critics who say that these views oversimplify a supposed world view as positive which in fact also has negative aspects. They point among other things to sociological analysis which suggest that a persons exposure to opportunity can depend on the social circles in which their family moves. Or in the case of meritocracy that while supporting the rise of the able, those living in a social context which did not support the growth of their talents are overlooked.

Please do not use the weasel words "supposed" and "some critics".
please cite your sources, preferably quoting them here, with footnotes.
In its current form, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please clarify your agruement, again, preferably using quoted, footnote sources

thank you for your contributions. I hope this does not discourage you.Travb 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

all you comments were fair, mine is actually that that section has nothing to do with article, so i've removed it. --DuLithgow 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

deletions

DuLithgow deleted the following:

Opportunity and meritocracy

The United States of America is nicknamed by some as the "Land of Opportunity". It has traditionally had less rigid social classes than other nations, and has no system of nobility. While this is not to say that indications of a class structure cannot be found, those constraints are not strictly inhereted birth. Americans are often attributed with having the belief that a strong work ethic and personal fortitude is the key to success, rather than being born to the right family or making the right friends.

Stating the reason as:

Opportunity and meritocracy - notions of these qualities are not unique to the US, this cannot be used as an arguement for exceptionalism without some references.)[2]

Political rights

A common claim is that the United States is unique in that it has from its founding guaranteed political civil rights to its citizens – such as freedom of speech, the right to vote, and the presumption of innocence, and that respect for these rights is a uniquely strong component of American political culture. Critics of this position argue that these rights mostly came from England and diffused into all countries under English, and later British, influence: they never were distinct to the US - the US merely consolidated these rights into a single source document which highlighted their prominence. Indeed it can be argued that the practical application of certain civil and political rights in the US lagged other western democracies, and it is argued that there is no US constitutional right to vote even today - see suffrage today.

Stating the reason as:

Political rights - 'A common claim', 'Critics of this position', 'it can be argued' and 'it is argued' are not real statements of position, they are weasel words (as someone rightly pointed to me[3]

Signed:Travb 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No experience with other forms of government?

The entry states, "The mythology of American culture is inextricably linked to its government because the culture lacks the experience of other governmental forms."

That's simply inaccurate. The fact is that America is comprised of individuals from every country around the globe, who collectively have experience with every form of government that exists. The vast majority of Americans (with exception, of course) are descended from immigrants who chose America. The fact that people around the world continue to pour into America, legally or illegally, shows there is some distinctive quality about America that those people desire above other countries of choice. Every immigrant, current or ancestoral, came to America with their experiences of other forms of government. That collective sharing of why we each came to America continues to shape the way Americans mold their government. America is the first and most experienced country whose government is continually crafted by the people, who bring to the table their collective awareness of what works and does not work best in forms of government.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.223.156.223 (talk • contribs).

I agree with you about the entry.

The reason why people come to America, I believe is economical. America is the richest country in the world. Americans seem to think that this somehow excuses American foreign policy, which is fallacious. Travb 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've remove that whole section. As noted, it is inaccurate. It is also an argument, not an encyclopediac description of an argument, and to my knowledge it is not frequent/notable argument worth documenting. The nature of American government, that whole "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal", is an often cited source of national identity and exceptionalism, but that is much different than mere longevity. And as another problem... um, the experience of living under another form of government, namely a monarchal tyranny, was fundamental to the people who wrote, voted for, and adopted the Bill of Rights based on that experience. 171.159.64.10 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference

Isn't it funny how words like Americentrism and American exceptionalism assume that United States = America? Piet 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be because in English the United States = America. Sorry. Perhaps you can correct this in Spanish Wikipedia. 171.159.64.10 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the thing is, the name of the country is the "United States of America". America is the short form of the country. Why not "the United States" alone? Because there are other countries which are "united states". The United States of Mexico. The United Kingdom. Etc. America may also be a continent or two continents, but the regional affiliation with America is not the issue. The country's name is "United States of America". Going around saying "We are U.S. citizens" instead of "Americans" is kind of dumb. And I am strongly opposed to American Expceptioonalism. I still feel like the people of the "United States of America" have a strong right to be called by default "Americans". Just like people of Mexico have a default right to be called "Mexicans". --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah geography quiz: the western hemisphere is made up of South _______ and North _________ You seemed to have forgotten this little fact. signed:Travb 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Travb--geography quiz: the western hemisphere is also made up of more than a few European nations. You seemed to have forgotten that little fact as well. Steven --68.93.199.219 14:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost. The western hemisphere used to be the west half of Europe and the Americas, but now it is all of the USA, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Russia (depending on source), and basically any country outside of Asia major, the middle east, and South America. Tyler 11:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Zaphnathpaaneah, just because "U.S. Citizens" sounds kind of dumb doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. It just means that it sounds dumb. America is the continent, and anyone on either continent has the right to call themselves americans. Including Mexico and Canada. By the way, I seriously doubt if a Mexican citizen would could himself a Meican, nor a Canadian consider it his right to be referenced as Canadian. So the US does not have a "default" right to be called American, they can call themselves American, Mexican, or Fish Sandwiches. Just because the USA shadows the rest of the Americas does not give it any more right to the word than any other country there.--Tyler 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the line "Americans are much less interest in equality and security" because it is terrible grammar and I'm not sure what the intent is. Given the "war on terror" can Americans be described as uninterested in security? Or is job security or economic security meant? 171.159.64.10 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased article

How can a country be stereotyped like this? no country brings any less or more, this article is biased.

Ongoing problems with this article

It's important that an article of this type is objectively about the subject and not written as a promotion (or the reverse!). A number of sections have been tagged since 2009, without (apparently) any attempt to resolve particular issues. I intend to delete obviously dubious passages within the next few days. Please feel free to comment etc. as necessary. Regards etc. --Klein zach 01:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to your pruning. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If in doubt, take it out. TFD (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Olaf Du Pont

Thank you for the comments made on an article by me quoted in the discussion. The purpose of the contribution was to show that certain concepts/metaphors can change through time and/or be interpreted to suit different agendas.

The examples taken from speeches of President Bush, Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Giulliani have been taken to show:

1. that the metaphor of 'a city upon a hill' is used in current political rhetoric 2. that the metaphor has been used widely in American politics, starting from, but not limited to the Puritans 3. that the metaphor has been used through time to refer to strictly Christian, religious contexts (a convenant with God), as well as in more 'civil religion/patriotic' contexts 4. that the metaphor has been used as a crutch for various, diverging and even competing views, including foreign policy 5. that these examples illustrate the power of images and metaphors and that their widespread use acts as a kind of flag identifying the speaker, in this case as somebody who holds American tradition in high respect, but that the underlying message can be very diverse

With this aim in mind, I wish to not pronounce myself on the nature of American exceptionalism, but merely point out that a metaphor that is used to describe this fluid concept can be used as a rhetorical strategy for a whole array of political ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olafdp (talk • contribs) 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a more modest goal than was taken by an editor here who used your paper to say that American exceptionalism was founded on an entitlement from God, supposedly given to the Pilgrims if they kept the faith. This idea is not mainstream in AE: mainstream thought is that de Tocqueville saw in Americans a sense of equality. There was nothing religious in the first appreciations of AE.

I have disputed your paper in previous talk page discussions: Deleting Noonan, Twain, Sellevold, Du Pont, and "But we’re American...": a paper by Olaf Du Pont. I do not think your paper can be used very much in this article, if at all, because its ideas are too far from mainstream thought, and are not yet important enough to qualify as a significant minority viewpoint. If you wrote a book and it was well-reviewed and cited by others then that would make your opinion more notable. Right now, there is nothing from you in the article, but that could change in the future. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

International perspective on American exceptionalism

It would be highly interessting to know what political scientists in other western countries think on it. A mere US perspective ist POV at its finest. Any sources?--173.245.84.127 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We generally think of scholarship as international and to divide scholars into Americans and non-Americans would imply a bias. If there were sources that claimed this of course we could mention it. For your information, Canadian scholars Gad Horowitz and George Grant supported the thesis, while New Zealander J. G. A. Pocock writing is used to reject the theory. TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Neoconservatives

Although the term does not imply superiority, some neoconservative writers have used it in that sense.(Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism, 1997, pp. 17-19)

An editor has added the highlighted term "neoconservative"[4] although it does not appear in Lipset's original text. We should not change the meaning of the sources used, and therefore I will remove the term. (The editor asked me in his edit summary to find a source to support his edit.) TFD (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Roots

"...American exceptionalism dates back to the seventeenth century, when religious exiles fancied the colonies a new Jerusalem ordained to Christianize a pagan land..."

How we became a nation of warriors-Over the last century, militarism has warped our foreign policy -- and our soul. Can the budget crisis save them?

Further Reading: Stephen Glain: "State vs. Defense: The Battle to Define America's Empire",2011--91.4.249.121 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

a) yes there are colonial hints and roots; b) the 17th century usage did NOT use the terms "American" or "exceptionalism" and did not have any concept whatever of the USA. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

POV in lede resurfaced

Once a year I revisit this article and every single time I find that the lead is tweaked and pruned again to present a decidedly sympathetic view of American exceptionalism -- with the significant domestic (circa 50%) and overwhelming international opposition & criticism to this thesis either downplayed or pruned completely. And by the same two users apparently. Any suggestions, or is it time to call some admins here? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Once a year you find your editing work challenged because of the flaws it contains, such as your text not supported by your cites. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

This edit, which is captioned, "inflammatory material deleted from lede", removes mention of the "shining city on a hill", and adds "anti-Semitism... unfortunately influenced the U.S. Government's refusal to accept many Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust", although the source does not mention exceptionalism. It also adds that "many left-wing authors have rejected American exceptionalism", which does not reflect the source. I see no reason for these changes and ask that the editor explain them. TFD (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

POV changes unsupported by cited text. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

These two users, exactly. You guys are certainly tenacious, but we all know that your version of the article (and the lede) is so POV it's not even funny. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Article makes a mockery of itself!

"the well-being of ordinary people"

This phrase is ridiculous and should not be in the article! In USA ordinary people often go bankrupt due to medical costs. There is nothing to protect them from industrial environmental pollution and unhealthy food produced with max profit in sight. US popular culture ecourages shallowness in all human relations, so workforce can be easily uprooted and shuffled coast to coast to maximize profit. Crime rates are way too high. There is no paid holiday or sick leave in law and many salary-people spend years without ever seeing a weekday off-work. Negro ghettos still exist and the poor hispanics are quickly becoming the new slave-class in USA. How does all this constitute "the well-being of ordinary people"?

"The well-being of ordinary people" is much more characteristic of countries in Northern Europe or Singapore (maybe even Japan, although they work way too much). 82.131.210.163 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does not say that the comments are true, merely that that is how they see themselves. In fact there is a segment of the American public that does want to expand accessibility to medical care, while others oppose popular culture. TFD (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Stalin cite

Regarding this recent dispute about the claim of Stalin being the first in the English language to use the term. Because of my geographical location I do not have access to full text or even snippet view of this source, and the quoted text does not mention the term "American exceptionalism" at all. If the source does mention this term, it would be nice if people having full access to the cited source added the term to the quotation in the footnote. But of course if it doesn't mention this term it should not be a source for this claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Any Google Books search using the terms Stalin and American exceptionalism brings up a number of Books verifying this fact. I just added another with full page access. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Though my first try did result in a "This page is not accessible from your location", my next try did in fact open the linked page which verified the cite. It does indeed fully support the claim, so I withdraw my objections. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and cheers back. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in Pease's notes which in any way supports his claim that Stalin used the phrase. I am not used to this interface, so forgive me if this is not formatted correctly. Why is an unsupported claim, even if it is from an "academic" source, a better source than Stalin's original speeches, which DO NOT use the phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.231 (talk • contribs)

Pease's assertion stands the test of being a scholar discussing something under his area of expertise: words and terms in English. We do not have to tear Pease apart to find the stuffing; there is no controversy or contradiction from another scholar saying that the term did not originate with Stalin or with Communism's attempt to describe America. Per WP:NOR, we are not going to try and figure out whether Pease was exactly correct or greatly mistaken. Pease is support enough for his own statement. Instead, we should look for other scholars who give contradictory information, or who directly rebut Pease. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)