In a Panglossian way though, in context, that's not so surprising. What's made Euro-civilisation different is an explicit ideal of abstract equality and dignity. The ideal has been trampled on so many times it's ridiculous, but it's still there as a kind of final appeal to civilisation which at least some people believe in at least some of the time, and which progressives - bless their keyboards - would like to see more of.
Genocide, exploitation and empire seem to be the natural human state of things, and while it's easy to be horrified by colonialism, there are plenty of cultures which have had colonialism and slavery without feeling any obligation to be horrified at all.
We're not special because we're unusually civilised - in reality, we really aren't. But we are special because we have occasional, all-too-fleeting moments when we dream that we could be better. And that's almost unique in history.
One of the biggest diseases on the US body politic - right up there with neoliberal economics - is American Exceptionalism. If we want to make a more perfect union for Europe, we'll have to step on European Exceptionalism so hard it dies. Otherwise, give it a couple of decades and we'll be the ones cluelessly wondering why "they" hate us.
And as long as we have people like Tory Bliar saying that he's proud of the British Empire (yes, he has actually said that. Gag me), I don't think we should be shouting our mouths off too badly about how much better than the US we inherently are.
Our political culture is at the moment a lot more civilised than the political culture across the Pond, so we have a much better starting point for creating a non-traditional great power that doesn't behave like a petulant five-year-old with superpowers. But a large part of the reason that we have a better starting point than the US is precisely the fact that we have not been hegemons for the past fifty or so years.
And whether we'll succeed in turning our current advantage into more permanently civilised behaviour remains to be seen. So our bragging rights are somewhat limited at this point.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I know it's fashionable to get the guilt on. And it's not as if there isn't plenty to feel guilty about.
Even so - inherent dignity and inherent human rights are both unique concepts, and key cultural drivers.
Exceptionalism is SOP for empires. It's what empires do. But the idea that something better might be possible isn't quite so common - no matter how unlikely it's looking at the moment.
If there's a way to rehabilitate Euro-culture politically, it's to move that concept back to the centre and make it an anchor of integrity around which everything else revolves.
We've had so much to be cynical about politically for such a long time it's hard to imagine how that might be possible. But the alternative is likely to be worse, so it may not be such a bad thing to aim for.
So, perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps it is time to stop throwing that era into the argument as some mitigation for the US' actions. Sure, it has to be watched out for, and the lessons taught for future generations...just saying. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
If we want to make a more perfect union for Europe, we'll have to step on European Exceptionalism so hard it dies.
Thus even today, many, perhaps most, Americans completely deny that America is engaged in empire building at all - despite the presence of US troops in more than 100 "sovereign" nations. America has practiced a new form of neo-colonialism which involves indirect corporate hegemony and covert rather than overt military actions in many cases. Even Iraq was to help Iraqis enjoy the fruits of democracy!
It is the indirect/covert/ideological model of US neo-colonialism which is particularly corrosive as it can seemingly co-exist side by side with all the laudable claims to virtue contained in the Declaration of Independence. In some ways the old European model of colonialism which involved direct military/poltical rule was more obvious and more honest - and easier to oppose/resist.
"Global corporations" are almost beyond all governance. Military contractors are not subject to the usual military disciplines. And most American's would be genuinely appalled if they knew the full extent of what the CIA et al routinely engages in.
The sadness is not the the US is worse than (say) Nazi Germany or the Stalinist Soviet Union. Of course it is not. The sadness is that such noble ideals have become so debased - which is also why we have to be careful how the EU develops if it ever does become a "harder" world power. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Maybe, of maybe not.
Wikipedia: Revision and replacement of the Articles of Confederation
Rakove (1988) identifies several factors that explain the collapse of the Confederation. The lack of compulsory direct taxation power was objectionable to those wanting a strong centralized state or expecting to benefit from such power. It could not collect customs after the war because tariffs were vetoed by Rhode Island. Rakove concludes that their failure to implement national measures "stemmed not from a heady sense of independence but rather from the enormous difficulties that all the states encountered in collecting taxes, mustering men, and gathering supplies from a war-weary populace."[13] The second group of factors Rakove identified derived from the substantive nature of the problems the Continental Congress confronted after 1783, especially the inability to create a strong foreign policy. Finally, the Confederation's lack of coercive power reduced the likelihood for profit to be made by political means, thus potential rulers were uninspired to seek power.
you should be writing inspirational speeches for some big cheese...
this whole debate is stellar, btw, raising the ET bar once again. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
