There's a lot of disagreement on what American exceptionalism is. There are left right variants of it with historical antecedents for both, with little agreement between those on its role in their respective identity politics. Where there is significant overlap (and agreement) is the deference both side of the spectrum pay to economic interests. It this respect America is exceptional, as a matter of differential, but not necessarily in the evaluative sense, from its democratic industrial counterparts in Europe. America is exceptional because it has allowed economic power, coupled (more recently) with military power to essentially castrate political power from any meaningful assertions that might seek to regulate its predominance or throttle its insatiable appetite for growth.

It's the weak American political class' lowly, but primary, job to package this up for the rubes, and sell it to them as freedom, individuality, meritocracy, and American pragmatism to the rescue from the dull thud of European (or commie) socialism - where the notion of people having "rights", or governments actually having power over anything. Is reduced to a cardinal sin, reinforcing the outrageously contradictory belief that if people have "rights" then they cannot be "free".

So by this logic, giving people rights, destroys their freedom, because one one hand it destroys individual initiative by relying on the government, that then has to take other peoples money (in taxes) to do the work necessary to guarantee those rights. This grows the government's power (& the welfare state) in relation to the economic class' potential. And is also the same logic that produces the countervailing votes in the UN that b mentions, rightfully as a product of American exceptionalism.

While there are tons of problems with this way of reasoning in its own right, the least of which is our own bill of rights, it (perhaps) more importantly goes to underline just how pervasive and all inclusive economic thinking has become in American identity. Whereby this entire facade is custom made to facilitate economic prowess at the expense of everything and everybody else. People without rights have no social agency, protection, opportunity, or knowledge. People without rights have no power.

The Godhead of America is and has been money, and now that that money has been allowed to immolate itself into a fireball of disrepute - what now?

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 22 2008 10:09 utc | 1

The Godhead of America is and has been money, and now that that money has been allowed to immolate itself into a fireball of disrepute - what now?

Yes, we truly stand at the gates of delirium

La la, la la la la la la
La la la la la la la, la la la.

Stand and fight we do consider
Reminded of an inner pact between us
Thats seen as we go
And ride there
In motion
To fields in debts of honour defending

Stand the marchers soaring talons
Peaceful lives will not deliver freedom
Fighting we know,
Destroy oppression
The point to reaction
As leaders look to you attacking

Choose and renounce throwing chains to the floor
Kill or be killing faster sins correct the flow
Casting giant shadows off vast
Penetrating force
To alter via the war that seen
As frictions spans the spirits wrath ascending to redeem

Wars that shout in screams of anguish
Power spent passion bespoils our soul receiver
Surely we know.
In glory we rise to offer,
Create our freedom, a word, we utter a word.

Words cause our banner, victorious our day
Will silence be promised as violence display
The curse increased we fight the powr and live by it by day
Our gods awake in thunderous roars and guide
The leaders hands in paths of glory to the cause

Listen should we fight forever
Knowing as we do know
Fear destroys?
Listen should we leave our children?
Listen our lives stare in silence
Help us now

Listen your friends have been broken
They tell us of your poison
Now we know
Kill them give them as they give us
Slay them burn their childrens laughter
On to hell

The fist will run
Grasp metal to gun
The spirit sings in crashing tones we gain the battle drum
Our cries will shrill the air will moan and crash into the dawn
The pen wont stay the demons wings, the hour approaches
Pounding out the devils sermon

Soon oh soon the light
Pass within and soothe this endless night
And wait here for you
Our reason to be here

Soon oh soon the time
All we move to gain will reach and calm
Our heart is open
Our reason to be here

Long ago, set into rhyme

Soon oh soon the light
Ours to shape for all time, ours the right
The sun will lead us
Our reason to be here

Soon oh soon the light
Ours to shape for all time, ours the right
The sun will lead us
Our reason to be here

Yes - gates of delirium part 1 2001
Yes - gates of delirium part 2 2001
Yes - gates of delirium pt. 3 2001

"The Gates of Delirium" is a dense, 22-minute piece that was inspired (okay, loosely inspired by...it's Jon Anderson we're talking about, after all) by Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. It features lengthy improvisations by each member of the band, sometimes clashing intentionally with one another. Featuring lyrics about the futility of war, it remains one of the most musically aggressive songs ever produced by the band. The final section, in which the aggression of the previous 16 minutes is suddenly replaced by a gentle melody and a lyrical prayer for peace. This is such a superb composition. The way it tells a story is beautiful and uncanny. It's not a song, it's an epic. I saw it done live in my youth, back some three decades ago, when I had the innocence and wild magic of a child, things were still possible, mystical and I still believed.

Yes? Frankly, No.

For the simple reason anna missed suggests above.

All the stupidity and the arbitrariness of the laws, all the pain of the initiations, the whole perverse apparatus of repression and education, the red-hot irons, and the atrocious procedures have only this meaning: to breed man, to mark him in his flesh, to render him capable of alliance, to form him within the debtor-creditor relation, which on both sides turns out to be a matter of memory — a memory straining toward the future.

- Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, “Savages, Barbarians, Civilized Men,” in Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

... national money is the gradual result of successive open and agreed-upon contracts between citizens, states, and banks, rather than exclusively the result of systemic changes dictated from the top down. Following this long developmental process starkly reveals the way in which the state comes to control semiotic processes, in effect, appropriating an international sign of value held by its citizenry (e.g., gold or silver) and replacing it with a national sign of value (paper or token coins). This exchange of international and national signs, then, carries important consequences for binding the citizens to the nation-state. Whereas most studies of nationalism contribute to our understanding of how citizens became tied to a convergent and produced national past, the history of the emergence of national paper money will show that it is equally important to consider the manner in which people became bound, in unison, to the nation-state’s future.

In so binding the citizenry to the nation’s future, this paper money system in turn contributes to the production of the spatiotemporal boundaries that mark the nation-state. In effect, it creates a sort of inverted panopticon, wherein the citizens must be constantly gazing back into the nation’s center, for their own economic self-interest has now become attached to the management of the national currency

.

"Inverting the Panopticon: Money and the Nationalization of the Future"
~Gustav Peeble

Excellent post b... a midwinter / solstice greetings to all.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 22 2008 13:55 utc | 2

"Inverting the Panopticon: Money and the Nationalization of the Future" Gustav Peeble Public Culture 20:2 (2008)pdf download

For brother R'giap, et al...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 22 2008 14:08 utc | 3

"177 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 2 abstentions (Canada and Israel),"
This shows rather simply that the US govt voted with their conscience...the USfedgovt doesn't feel it needs to pretend anymore or put on a happy democratic face any longer. The past eight years didn't happen by accident.

Posted by: James Crow | Dec 22 2008 14:23 utc | 4

This has nothing to do with American Exceptionalism. It is instead resistance to world federalism vs. freedom of (economic) development and local autonomy.

Excerpts of vote explanations by US Mission to the UN:

Explanation of Vote by Ambassador T. Vance McMahan, U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council, on agenda item 64(b), L.42/Rev.1: “The right to food,” to the Third Committee of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, 24 November 2008.
Mr. Chairman,

While the United States agrees with the sentiment in this resolution that the world food situation is a problem of profound significance and while we agree with much of what is stated in this resolution, we once again cannot support the text as it is drafted and thus was forced to request a recorded vote on this draft resolution.

As delegations are aware, the United States has consistently taken the position that the attainment of any “right to adequate food” or “right to be free from hunger” is a goal or aspiration to be realized progressively that does not give rise to any international obligation nor diminish the responsibilities of national governments to their citizens.
http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20081124_340.html
------------------------
Explanation of Vote by Ambassador T. Vance McMahan, U.S. Representative to the General Assembly, on agenda item 64(b), L.30: "Right to development," to the Third Committee of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, 24 November 2008.
Mr. Chairman, the United States opposes this resolution and we therefore request a vote.

Our position on this resolution is well-known – the United States understands the term "right to development" to mean that each individual should enjoy the right to develop his or her intellectual or other capabilities to the maximum extent possible through the exercise of the full range of civil and political rights.

Moreover, the resolution before us contains reference to the same initiatives that we have found objectionable in years past, such as the consideration of a legally binding instrument on the Right to Development.
http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20081124_342.html

--------------

Explanation of Vote by Robert Hagen, Deputy U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council, on the Rights of the Child, in the Third Committee of the General Assembly, November 27, 2007
[one of three]

We are committed to ensuring that the protection of the rights of children is fully integrated into American foreign policy. It is for this reason that the United States supports many of the principles underlying this resolution. For example, the United States has ratified the two Optional Protocols to the Convention of the Rights of the Child relating to the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and to the Sale of Children, Child Pornography, and Prostitution.

However, the United States has repeatedly made clear that the Convention on the Rights of the Child raises a number of concerns. In particular, the convention conflicts with the authority of parents, and the provisions of state and local law in the United States. Many of the activities covered by the convention in areas such as education, health, and criminal justice are primarily the responsibility of state and local governments in the United States.
http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20071127_335.html

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 22 2008 16:00 utc | 5

The US has always been against the ‘right to food’ which has existed as a principle (document, etc.) for a long long time. This is just the latest vote. As for the rights of the child, many signatories put ‘reserves’ on it, and count as ‘on board.’ (Switzerland for one.) Afaik, all of the texts mentioned are ‘recommendations’ to be put to the General Assembly.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm>link

Food, A weapon, from Time, 1941:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765334,00.html>link

The Kissinger 1974 flap:

http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Depopulation/food_as_a_weapon_to_control_people.htm>link

One might simply say the US is being less hypocritical than others or that it has the power, hubris and guts, or foolishness to stick by its principles rather than bow down in a mealy-mouthed way to ‘socialist nonsense’ or whatever. (I don’t disagree with the principles in themselves.) Another ex. is the Kyoto protocol which the US has never ratified. Bush objected to the leeway made for China - it is all a lot of horse trading and in the long run, controls nothing, it is a lot of self congratulatory whitewash.

Laissez-faire is a deeply ingrained tic or quasi - philosophy. Obama was elected to temper it somewhat, and he will. It is also very destructive, self-destructive in fact, see Katrina for ex. or Americans without health insurance.

Posted by: Tangerine | Dec 22 2008 17:47 utc | 6

The US is truly exceptional. Or was.

The colonizers faced an incredibly rich, lush, varied, continent, one of the biggest, most fertile, areas in the world. That never happened before and now won’t happen again. Killing off the original inhabitants was easy to accomplish, as was subsequently importing slave labor, all that muscle was necessary to get the place going. The discovery of oil, and how to exploit it, did the rest. The concept of ‘freedom’ or ‘impunity’ and even of ‘free markets’ is typical of a certain Anglo colonialist mentality, but not only of them of course.

The US was just an instance on a greatly grander scale. Having such a fantastic play ground to act in lead to individualistic values - the forays or domination of the ones don’t impact others, in fact they seem favorable; a new business, less pesky locals, trickle down, extravagance, innovation, superlative achievements like skyscrapers, or the old railways before they were busted by the car industry, etc. - in any case the harm done is not evident, or simply exceptional, localised, a bad luck story, the loser, a mythical figure, who nevertheless, please note, does not starve. He or she feels that they or their children are still participating in a great adventure as special humans in an exceptional, yes, beacon on the hill, territory.

But when the energy picture changes, and domination is gradually lost...

Posted by: Tangerine | Dec 22 2008 18:52 utc | 7

Don, why isn't resistance to world federalism vs economic development and local autonomy, not an example of exceptionalism? The US. (rather exclusively) evades these attempts to codify global human rights because it runs contrary to establishing its neo-colonial economic hegemony on the rest of the world. The U.S. would rather keep people "free" of the tools (rights) that otherwise might be used to improve their lot through the empowerment of government agency. And banish them instead to a life of human economic flotsam.

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 22 2008 20:04 utc | 8

For christs sake Bacon do ever look past the blather sent out to deceive you paid for outta your own pocket, and try to analyse the effect of what your governments actions are rather than just lap up the cliche ridden spin put about those actions to justify them to the nation of mental midgets?

I have been following amerika's votes in the UN since I first got involved in the anti-apartheid movement in the 60's. Back then amerika would consistently vote for the continued oppression of black south africans by preventing trade embargoes and sanctions against south africa to 'keep out the commies'. What commies? Nelson Mendela who had already been languishing on Robbins Island too long? The amerikan vote would never even support motions aimed at providing a rebuke to South Africa for their racist policies, a telling off with no sting in the tail was too much for amerika.
The reason was simple amerika corporates had massive investments in white South Africa and they were concerned about the future of those investments if there was a regime change, so they refused to do what was ethically correct time and time again.

But that is only one example I'm sure that countless other contributors here could provide others. Israel where amerika has consistently denied justice to palestinians by using it's security council veto.
The list is endless and the 'world government' bullshit that you get fed in amerika about the UN leaves the rest of us around the world gobsmacked at such wilful ignorance by people who seem in other ways to have an intellect.
The only mob who has ever been caught trying to control UN votes with blackmail, spying, extortion and bribery (see pre-iraq invasion votes) is amerika and then they try and claim others are behaving undemocratically!

You mugs lap it up every time. I am coming to the belief that this is deliberate like that nelson admiral bloke who held the telescope up to his eyepatch.
You prefer to remain in ignorance of the murders and thefts committed around the world by the government you elect so you can sleep untroubled by the doubts which would assail should reality ever be allowed to creep in.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Dec 22 2008 20:20 utc | 9

anna missed,
The US. (rather exclusively) evades these attempts to codify global human rights

When all the blah-blah about "codifying" is finished, we're talking money here. Who gets it and who doesn't, and under what conditions.

The US has been uncooperative with the UN because, let's face it, the UN is poorly run. The US has promoted human rights, however, making them a factor in its foreign aid through Bush's Millenium Challenge Account. I don't claim that this program is perfect, or deny that its core objective is profits for US companies through economic development, but it does tie good governance to foreign aid, and that seems to me to be a good thing. Perhaps alter the criteria, with less promotion of economic development, but keep the concept.

In March, 2002, President Bush called for “a new compact for global development, defined by new accountability for both rich and poor nations alike. Greater contributions from developed nations must be linked to greater responsibility from developing nations.” The President pledged that the United States would lead by example and increase its core development assistance by 50 percent over the next three years, resulting in an annual increase of $5 billion by FY 2006.

“We must tie greater aid to political and legal and economic reforms. And by insisting on reform, we do the work of compassion. The United States will lead by example. I have proposed a 50-percent increase in our core development assistance over the next three budget years. Eventually, this will mean a $5 billion annual increase over current levels.

"These new funds will go into a new Millennium Challenge Account, devoted to projects in nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom.”
-- President George W. Bush, Monterrey, Mexico, March 22, 2002

In fact, by the end of 2004 aid doubled and is to double again by 2010.

Seventeen criteria have been established for countries to qualify for this aid, deriving from various agencies such as WHO, UNESCO and others. They include: civil liberties, rule of law, girls' primary education completion (this one's for you), immunization rates, etc.

"Doing Business 2007" cited the Millennium Challenge Accounts as a catalyst for reforms underway in 13 countries. If true, that's pretty good for a new program.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 22 2008 21:17 utc | 10

Debs, I'll have to admit that you're a lot more accurate on the past (South Africa) than you are on the future (SOFA), and as salty as ever. I am kind of insulted that I didn't earn any personal insults this time. I guess I'll have to crank it up a bit.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 22 2008 21:23 utc | 11

This just goes to show that the US prefers using food as a weapon to kill off the have-nots of the world to using it to feed them back to health.

Posted by: Cynthia | Dec 22 2008 22:08 utc | 12

Lol. Using food as a weapon? The USA provides more free food than any other country through official channels, and Americans give about $10 billion a year to charities that operate overseas. Not to mention the money we provide for programs like the MCA.

I'm sure there are other countries that "do better." But then, I do not agree that the U.S. government has some obligation to confiscate taxpayer money for overseas charity. We did not create the problems of overpopulation, inept and corrupt governments, inefficient use of land and maladaptive social structures, and it is not our UN-given job to solve them. This is the basis of American votes against UN resolutions like those mentioned above. People may feel free to donate money in amounts and to charitable causes of their choosing, and I applaud this kind of generosity.

Posted by: Matt | Dec 23 2008 3:37 utc | 13

They might just have found a way to knock them off their phony bullshit hill. There's a sit-in going on that force has been unable to disperse.

Posted by: ...---... | Dec 23 2008 3:45 utc | 14

The US has been uncooperative with the UN because, let's face it, the UN is poorly run

funny. the u.n. is "poorly run" by design.

While the architects of the United Nations certainly intended to create a venue that would peacefully resolve conflicts between nations and groups, its very structure, including its human rights mechanisms, excludes attention to the human rights violations of the major powers, which remain in critical instances protected by the veto privilege of the Security Council. The UN's guiding principle of national sovereignty would also limit its capacity to protect human rights; those who framed that structure may have erroneously hoped that marginalized and oppressed individuals in authoritarian and poor states would be allowed to express their human rights grievances through legitimate channels similar to those that existed in the West.

rewind a bit, zoom in

The cold war ... undercut the constructive tone of the San Francisco conference. For a brief time, the two superpowers had seemed united in trying to develop the UN as an efficient international institution predicated upon human rights principles and capable of mediating international conflicts. Soon ideological differences surfaced, shaping the UN structure, the contents of fundamental human rights documents, and the actions (and inactions) of the organization. Engulfed in cold war politics, the UN became a battleground between superpowers' economic and geopolitical interests. In such a competition, invocations of human rights principles became a subterfuge for advancing the realpolitik interests of the East and West. Both sides, in the end, used the UN principally as one means of courting world opinion.

essentially, conflicting cosmologies of human rights ideologically predicated on socialism vs that of capitalism

Responding to Soviet efforts to harnesss socialist movements in Europe and the Third World, liberal notions of human rights soon collapsed into a foreign policy based on realpolitik. While the rhetorical commitment to universal liberal rights continued, in practice, the United States soon dropped whichever elements of liberal human rights seemed incompatible with state power and the interests of private capital. George Kennan, widely celebrated for his formulation of U.S. containment doctrine, provided a (somewhat overstated) version of the new "realism" in a classified document he wrote as head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff in 1948. "We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of the world's population," Kennan noted. "Our real taks in the coming period is ... to maintain this position of disparity. ... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. ... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights ... [W]e are going to have to deal in straight power concepts."

Where faced with choices between universal liberal political rights and protecting the interests of private capital, Kennan's strand of power politics was likely to prevail. In 1948, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) inaugurated its cold war campaign of worldwide covert action by interfering in Italian national elections, which had threatened to place a communist government in power. In Japan, the overt establishment of democratic institutions was coupled to the covert creation of a one-party state, as the CIA funded the pro-American Liberal Democratic Party while infiltrating and and sabotaging the Japanese socialist movement. From Iran to Guatemala to Chile, U.S. "security" policy now seemingly required overthrowing democratically elected regimes. From Southeast Asia to Central America, the same security considerations dictated suppressing mass social movements while supporting pro-Western despotic elites.

quotes taken from micheline ishay's the history of human rights: from ancient times to the globalization era

Posted by: b real | Dec 23 2008 3:48 utc | 15

Using food as a weapon?

this is new to you?

On 10 July, 1954, President Eisenhower signed Public Law 480, the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, more commonly known as PL-480. While the language of the act ennobled its goal with terms of international camaraderie, PL-480 was a cunning and powerful foreign policy tool. Any US-aligned government that found itself battling worker-led organizing or, indeed, any plausibly left-wing political opposition could gain access to the US strategic grain reserve. Those countries abutted by socialist ones were bumped to the front of the queue.

And so food aid became a central part of US foreign policy, accounting for more than half of all economic aid by 1956. Between 1956 and 1960 more than one-third of the world trade in wheat was accounted for by American aid. The world price of wheat was kept artificially low through food aid, hurting growers, but hooking countries of the Global South on US largesse. In 1968, the Global South's addiction for American goods peaked - 79 per cent of all US exports went to the "Third World." It was an agenda fully subscribed to by the US. Earl Butz, Secretary of State for Agriculture under Nixon and Ford, observed: "Hungry men listen only to those who have a piece of bread. Food is a tool. It is a weapon in the US negotiating kit."

taken from raj patel's stuffed and starved: the hidden battle for the world food system

Posted by: b real | Dec 23 2008 4:01 utc | 16

"We did not create the problems of overpopulation, inept and corrupt governments, inefficient use of land and maladaptive social structures, and it is not our UN-given job to solve them."

That's quite a trick Matt. 200 years of slavery, colonialism, military interventions, economic hegemony, 700 foreign military bases - all gone in the blink of an eye. Poof!

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 23 2008 4:05 utc | 17

Much of our early surpluses were used as food aid to keep our allies from joining the Communists. By the 1950s, Washington was lending billions of dollars to developing countries so that they could in turn buy our surplus food. Critics feared such programs turned foreign nations into U.S. dependents, but Washington saw that as a small price to pay to contain Communism. In the opinion of Senator Hubert Humphrey, a chief food-aid proponent, food dependence was actually "good news, because before people can do anything, they have to eat. And if you are looking for a way to get people to lean on you and to be dependent on you, in terms of their cooperation with you, it seems that food dependence would be terrific."

taken from paul roberts' the end of food

Posted by: b real | Dec 23 2008 4:09 utc | 18

...the impact of the Food for Peace program on Third World agriculture. Close to $30 billion worth of food was distributed by this program to over 130 countries between 1954 and 1980. Most Americans assume that this aid represents a humanitarian enterprise in support of needy peoples. In fact, the 1954 Agricultural Trade and Development Act (Public Law 480) was designed specifically to "improve the foreign relations of the United States" and to "promote the economic stability of American agriculture and the national welfare." Not until 1961 was the law's statement of purpose amended to include the goal of combating world hunger.

The need to buttress "the stability of American agriculture" was so urgent after the Korean War that the president of the American Farm Bureau warned that the accumulation food surpluses "will wreck our economy unless we can find sufficient markets to sustain the volume of production." So successful was P.L. 480 in finding the needed markets that during the first twelve years of the program, one fourth of all U.S. agricultural exports were financed by the law's easy credit terms. But the flood of U.S. food lowered food prices in the recipient countries to the point where local farmers were unable to compete. The net result was the undermining of local food production and increased reliance on U.S. food imports. This pattern was reinforced by trade associations representing the U.S. food industry, which encouraged local populations to adopt American-style eating habits, using P.L. 480 local currencies to promote their campaigns. Hence the growing shift from fish to hamburgers, from rice to bread and from local to American soft drinks.

The success of P.L. 480 not only expanded U.S. markets at the expense of Third World self-sufficiency in food but also realized the law's other objective - to "improve the foreign relations of the United States." Senator Hubert Humphrey, one of the earliest champions of the Food for Peace program, explicitly recognized and lauded this achievement before a Senate committee (1957):

I have heard ... that people may become dependent on us for food. I know that was not supposed to be good news. To me, that was good news, because before people can do anything they have got to eat. And if you are looking for a way to get people to lean on you and be dependent on you, in terms of cooperation with you, it seems to me that food dependence would be terrific.

Precisely the viewpoint was expressed by Reagan's Secretary of Agriculture, John Block, during his confirmation hearing (1980): "Food is a weapon but the way to use that is to tie countries to us. That way they'll be far more reluctant to upset us." Because of adverse publicity, Block several days later changed his terminology, if not his views, by terming food "a tool for peace."

taken from l.s. stavrianos' global rift: the third world comes of age

Posted by: b real | Dec 23 2008 4:31 utc | 19

matt's stupid, ignorant comment is a good example of why we'd rather watch this country implode domestically while supporting explosions abroad than face the reality that we were never as noble as our bullshit myths would have us believe. never mind the genocide and forced slave labor.

don't ever stop believing, matt, that we're one big nation of altruistic do-gooders, and all those naysayers are just jealous of how fucking great we are.

Posted by: Lizard | Dec 23 2008 4:48 utc | 20

That's not what Matt said.

Posted by: dekurilater | Dec 23 2008 5:17 utc | 21

you're right @21, that's not what he said.

Posted by: Lizard | Dec 23 2008 5:21 utc | 22

Don Bacon,
maybe you need a little more time to get used to the fact that we're all Negroes now.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Dec 23 2008 5:33 utc | 23

The Godhead of America is and has been money, and now that that money has been allowed to immolate itself into a fireball of disrepute - what now?

that is the question no one can answer, anna missed. that is the unexceptional reality of where we're at.

Posted by: Lizard | Dec 23 2008 5:37 utc | 24

That's quite a trick Matt. 200 years of slavery, colonialism, military interventions, economic hegemony, 700 foreign military bases - all gone in the blink of an eye. Poof!

Feel free to show how ouqr actions have impeded the Third World's efforts to develop or feed its people. Slavery ended 150 years ago, and we just elected Barack Obama. The USA only ever colonized a handful of territories. Puerto Rico literally won't let us leave; whatever's happened in Cuba and the Philippines since independence is entirely the responsibility of the Cubans and Filipinos.

"Economic hegemony." Guilty as charged, I suppose. The United States has been one of the world's principal sources of such horrors as innovation, production, scientific discoveries, and social/political advances. We've also been a major source of demand to keep overseas factories running and foreign workers employed. We accept full responsibility.

You can find the odd black mark - Vietnam, perhaps. But, in general, no state has ever held so much power as the post-1945 USA yet exercised it with such scrupulous responsibility and concern for the welfare of other peoples. Any country that hosts a U.S. military base may ask us to leave at any time, and we will do exactly that.

Several comments here seem to be critical of U.S. food aid. If food and development aid fosters dependence and brings other such evils, well, maybe we should stop providing it. Then those same posters would be back here blasting America for deliberately starving African children. Well, maybe we should do exactly as we've done: fund programs like the MCA, and try to create sustainable development without fostering dependence - but only Don Bacon bothers to mention that. You just can't win with some people.

The suggestion implicit in this blog post is that the USA is evil, because we "oppose" people having access to food and development opportunities. In Reality, the USA ardently supports those aims, both politically and in offering material help. The USA votes against U.N. resolutions like the above because we resent being told that we "owe" something to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Matt | Dec 23 2008 7:10 utc | 25

matt - who is 'we'? who are you claiming to speak for? you stated the other day that you 'read' here to 'know your enemy'. frankly, you do not appear to be very well informed on what you've opined on so far, so just wondering who it is you think you are doing battle against.

Posted by: b real | Dec 23 2008 7:59 utc | 26

"We accept full responsibility" while choking on our abundant goodness. I get it. The United States Matt is talking about never existed. Never ever remind us what the wee Americans owe, and the wee Centurians that wear our uniform won't drop a wee house on you.

Where Matt is your sense of Empire; the USA ardently digs other people's shit, and ardently schemes 24/7 to lay hands on said shit. You live in a dream world Matt, a dream world.

The Filipinos for instance, wouldn't hand over their whole world to Uncle Sugar, so President McKinley prayed real hard on it. And after he had his little talk with God, he decided that the thing the little people needed to get their minds right, was to have everyone in a few of their villages exterminated.

The very real estate on which your ass is parked, was extracted with extreme prejudice from the original owners. It's distressing to read a post like your #25. Food is not sacrosanct either. Corn has undergone hybrid processes to remove a great deal of the protein that was once in the crop; it's been largely stripped of nutritive value, and has become grist for a starchy mush that's turned high fructose sweetener, the kind that's in most of the junk food that shortens our American lives. There's some ingenuity for you.

Posted by: Copeland | Dec 23 2008 10:59 utc | 27

"The odd black mark - Vietnam, perhaps" the odd black mark? Matt, you either have a rare gift for satire or you studied history under Prof. Walt Disney. So a few million Vietnamese got themselves slaughtered because they foolishly blundered into the path of the global American welcome wagon?

Posted by: Tantalus | Dec 23 2008 21:03 utc | 28

tantalus

what matt seems to require in short order is an in residence study of him & his absence of memory with a team of forensic psychiatrists who ought to be skill in understanding or interpreting solemnic stupidity

the reading list - that a matt requires is so large that it might fall on us like some kind of avalanche

most of the people here provide a living & working knowledge - it is the work of posters like matt to do their work - that is to offer consdered debate not the caca of a cretin. if he does not want to do that work - i am sure that there is an opening for him at the american enterprise institute for yet another opiniated idiot

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 23 2008 23:53 utc | 29

"The odd black mark - Vietnam, perhaps" the odd black mark? Matt, you either have a rare gift for satire or you studied history under Prof. Walt Disney. So a few million Vietnamese got themselves slaughtered because they foolishly blundered into the path of the global American welcome wagon?

The Vietnam was was a catastrophic tragedy, no doubt about it. But the vast majority of noncombatant deaths were at the hands of Vietnamese Communists, not to mention the delights of "land reform" and "re-education camps" that were inflicted on the Vietnamese population. Military deaths are another matter, but taking up arms is a risky business. The "American phase" of the war began and ended with a Communist invasion of the South, not the other way round. Responsibility for North Vietnam's actions lies with... the North Vietnamese leadership.

As to whether we should have been involved at all, from a moral standpoint: it wasn't really our business, but note the relative fates of South and North Korea. As in Vietnam both began as dictatorships, and the U.S. fought to defend the South against Communist armed aggression. The South today is one of the great success stories of democratic capitalism, while North Korea is synonymous with brutal repression, starvation, misery, and death. Would a policy of nonintervention (read pacifism in the face of armed aggression) really have been morally correct?

Posted by: Matt | Dec 24 2008 10:13 utc | 30

matt - who is 'we'? who are you claiming to speak for? you stated the other day that you 'read' here to 'know your enemy'. frankly, you do not appear to be very well informed on what you've opined on so far, so just wondering who it is you think you are doing battle against.

b - I found this site during the Georgian War and I think it's is a valuable source of news & views you don't get elsewhere. On certain topics (mainly concerning the USA) the comments sometimes get pretty surreal, so I like to chime in and keep things lively. If I were not well-informed, you'd think it would be simple for others to refute what I say.

most of the people here provide a living & working knowledge - it is the work of posters like matt to do their work - that is to offer consdered debate not the caca of a cretin. if he does not want to do that work - i am sure that there is an opening for him at the american enterprise institute for yet another opiniated idiot

This doesn't really pass for considered debate... and I don't think AEI would take me, I've never voted for a Republican in my life.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays everybody :)

Posted by: Matt | Dec 24 2008 10:44 utc | 31

Matt, I'd say your polemic was becoming tedious, were it not for how well you you exemplify a flesh and blood example of how well American exceptionalism is internalized - as much as a denial mechanism as anything else.

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 24 2008 11:12 utc | 32

Matt, I believe that Robert McNamara himself eventually conceded that Operation Rolling Thunder had killed over a million North Vietnamese a year from 1965-68. I've never seen it seriously suggested that the VC or NVA inflicted that sort of damage on the South.

Posted by: Tantalus | Dec 24 2008 13:08 utc | 33

for Matt, re Vietnam and informing one's well, surrealistically or otherwise:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_pLWV4iq9kCU/SGN5Famt2LI/AAAAAAAAAHM/0YcGkLtGuCM/s1600-h/unclesamvietnam15front+copy.jpg>Uncle Sam Went to Vietnam

and in honor of big religious holidays and careful packaging, http://bp3.blogger.com/_pLWV4iq9kCU/SGN5FL7arzI/AAAAAAAAAHE/b6YJz3V--oc/s1600-h/sweetpea31front+copy.jpg>Sweet Pea Weepy

( I put titles up so if you've seen the cartoon before, no urge to click. Similarly, on my links to articles I now always put their titles as the link name.) If Matt has interest in more cartoons, he can click the "plushtown". Sorry no new ones, have written hundreds from the crimes in each newspsper, but am stuck in sloth/slough of despond.

Happy wishes to all in any case.

Posted by: plushtown | Dec 24 2008 17:55 utc | 34

Matt, merry x-mas to you too. Here is a Lou Reed number on the topic.

Sam was lyin' in the jungle
agent orange spread against the sky like marmalade
Hendrix played on some foreign jukebox
they were praying to be saved
Those gooks were fierce and fearless
that's the price you pay when you invade
Xmas in February
Sam lost his arm in some border town
his fingers are mixed with someone's crop
If he didn't have that opium to smoke
the pain would never ever stop
Half his friends are stuffed into black body bags
with their names printed at the top
Xmas in February
Sammy was a short order cook
in a short order black and blue collar town
Everybody worked the steel mill
but the steel mill got closed down
He thought if he joined the Army
he'd have a future that was sound
Like no Xmas in February
Sam's staring at the Vietnam Wall
it's been a while now that he's home
His wife and kid have left, he's unemployed
he's a reminder of the war that wasn't won
He's the guy on the street with the sign that reads
Please help send this Vet home
But he is home
and there's no Xmas in February
no matter how much he saves

Yeah, Sam's x-mases are of a somewhat different nature since he returned from Asia. What are his thoughts as he sits down one arm short to his x-mas dinner? Is he thinking about the countless faces of people killed without mercy at his hands, his contribution to the approx 4 million North Vietnamese civilians who died during US Operations against their country. 4 million fellow humans, killed with some of the most horrendous weapons ever unleashed on humans. Actually, not unlike Hiroshima. And also similar to Hiroshima, the suffering ain't over yet. People still die today, probably on this very x-mas day, from unexploded ordinance, radiation damage and effects from chemical agents.

And now Iraq & Afghanistan, from wedding parties to road intersections, entire families are wiped out by a fuckwit in Nevada playing God with a joystick and control over an UAV some ten thousand miles away. Whilst exact numbers are hard to determine, some estimates are in excess of 1 million civilian deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan due to the US wars of aggression.

4 million casualties in N Vietnam is getting close to the 6 million deaths the holocaust has reached, for which numerous high ranking Germans were hung. 1 million Iraqis dead is about twice as many casualties than what Saddam Hussein has been accused and hung for. On sheer numbers of civilian deaths, US administrations, ever since day one and the attempted genocide on America's traditional owners, have been operating in the same league as some of the vilest tyrants and mass murderers known to mankind. Sounds harsh, but if you put the alleged motives for the invasions aside and count it through, that's where its at.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Dec 24 2008 18:53 utc | 35

Matt, I believe that Robert McNamara himself eventually conceded that Operation Rolling Thunder had killed over a million North Vietnamese a year from 1965-68. I've never seen it seriously suggested that the VC or NVA inflicted that sort of damage on the South.

Much research is available on this topic, here for example. U.S./allied bombing and shelling killed 100-180,000 civilians from 1960-75, including negligent or accidental deaths as well as those who placed themselves near genuine military or economic targets. An additional 5-6,000 may have been killed in atrocities and massacres by individual U.S. units. Against this, between '45 and '87, Communist forces killed between 500,000 and 2.8 million Vietnamese civilians, and that's only counting the sort of deliberate mass murder that the author labels "democide." The bulk of these people were murdered in the purges, prison camps, and state terrorism that followed Communist victories in '54 and '75.

People loved the SRVN liberators so much that, once the evil USA was driven out, hundreds of thousands fled to stinking refugee camps in neighboring countries or sailed into the South China Sea on rickety, leaking boats. They considered this a better alternative to remaining in their homes and with their families. The Great Satan felt responsible (even though it had no influence over SRVN policy or actions) and granted asylum to 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.

Posted by: Matt | Dec 24 2008 21:48 utc | 36

matt, rummel is a war monger. the fantasy our enemies killed vastly amounts of more people than we did is a meme that continues today. it is simply BS. from wiki

Rummel is also author of the Never Again Series. According to the series' website, Never Again is "a what-if, alternative history... [in which] two lovers are sent back in time to 1906 with modern weapons and 38 billion 1906 dollars" in order to prevent the rise of totalitarianism and the outbreak of world war.

What if there were a solution to war and genocide? What if a secret society sent back to 1906 two lovers, Joy Phim, a gorgeous warrior, and John Banks, a pacifist professor of history, and gave them the incredible wealth and weapons necessary to create a peaceful alternative universe--one that never experienced the horrors of world war, the Holocaust, and the other atrocities of the twentieth century? And what if, at great personal cost, they succeed too well and create a peaceful world of complacent democracies?

In Book 2, the clock is turned back to their arrival in 1906. They receive a message from the future of the universe they will create-Islamic fundamentalists have attacked the unarmed democracies with nuclear weapons and enslaved them. It is now up to these lovers to prevent this horrible future.[3]

let me guess, the gorgeous warrior saves the day?

Posted by: annie | Dec 24 2008 22:48 utc | 37

so Matt. I'd like to ask where did America go wrong. Why is the USA ass-broke now and pretty much reliant on the benevolence & goodwill of its creditors. Not that the rest of the world does'nt have an interest in sustaining America as its largest market but the reality is that the rest of the world will do just fine regardless of what happens to America. Lets get real. America no longer produces anything the rest of the world cannot produce for itself. Worse, all of the USA's claims to exceptional moral merit lie in the dust today.

I'm also curious to ask how much of a black-mark the brutal destruction of the USA's Communist Party was in your opinion. After that, what followed was pretty much inevitable. USA adventurism over the last 50 years constitute a bold attempt to re-align the American people to ideologies diametrically contrary to their aspirations and far narrower than could be sustained. And it has failed. Its like what were you thinking because despite America's ugliest mistakes, its aspirations have never been a secret.

You only get one chance, so deal with it.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Dec 25 2008 0:43 utc | 38

matt

as annie notes your 'source' is so far from any sense of historical exactitude that it woulod be laughable if it were not ther murder of at least 3 million people in vietnam alone. not even what passes for scholarship on the right would try to pass off your numbers as anything approaching reality

you demean any sense in your argument with this form of pornography

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 25 2008 1:01 utc | 39

a quibble w/ juan moment's phrasing "the attempted genocide on America's traditional owners"

there's no question of genocide, both of the actual mass killing variety as well as cultural genocide, or ethnocide. entire tribes/peoples were deliberately exterminated from the face of the earth by non-indians over a four hundred year period in the area now regarded as the united states. think california or texas, for instance. or the settler wars of extermination, the so-called "indian wars". wounded knee was a genocide, as was sand creek. plenty of other examples that qualify as genocide. after wounded knee in 1890, exterminating the indian took on less bloody tactics to conquer their way of life & steal their lands.

Posted by: b real | Dec 25 2008 3:56 utc | 40

Genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,

b real, you are right, “attempted” doesn’t really cut it. For many North American tribes the arrival of white man spelt the end, they were methodically annihilated, given smallpox ridden blankets and alcohol to mop up any survivors.

However, in pretty much every discussion I had over the years concerning this issue I am being told that Native Americans were killed for their land, not coz they were simply American Indians. The massacres and starvation weren’t aimed at native tribes in general, but against those tribes that fought and lost a war against the US, and then, at the victor’s mercy, were required to resettle, which back then was seen as a right of conquerors. In my eyes a pretty one-dimensional view, one that rejects the deep-seated, ethnic and religious factors in the motivation for Whitey to kill Native Americans, but the fact that different tribes received different treatment is interpreted by some as an argument against the term genocide.

Another point of contention hinges on the phrase “in whole or in part”. Some argue that since many of the tribes - or any Native Americans for that matter – are still around, this apparently shows that genocide was not the objective. If it would have been, there would be no survivors. Instead, so the argument goes, as treatment varied from tribe to tribe, what happened to the American Indians - as a nation of people - was not genocide per se, but more akin to ethnic cleansing.

Anyhow, whilst it is semantics, I suppose I used the term “attempted” to not be drawn into a debate on to what degree the violent and murderous takeover of North America amounted to genocide. I reckon that no matter how you look at it, or think of it, it was mass murder on a grand scale, the American holocaust, carried out by an invasion of bigoted Uebermenschen in their quest for Lebensraum. Once the new Lebensraum had been successfully stolen and its native population decimated into insignificance, the Uebermenschen’s quest continued, the goal now world domination.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Dec 26 2008 6:25 utc | 41

the bait "Matt" provided has produced some damn fine responses.

in some ways, though, i understand feeling squished from the weight of criticism the country i was born in receives. then voices like "Matt" waltz in, and i'd rather believe his comments represent some trollish ploy to swat the hornets nest than actual belief.

that said, any non-native unable to recognize the colonial scope of planned extermination will predictably transform their unacknowledged guilt into either angry rebuttals or flimsy justifications for slaughtering natives and exporting other atrocities to maintain the spoils that came from the original transgression.

Posted by: Lizard | Dec 26 2008 7:46 utc | 42

the fact that different tribes received different treatment is interpreted by some as an argument against the term genocide

but that would be totalizing the whole of native americans as one specific group, which strikes me as ignorance, if not racist. i've had those arguments w/ others too - many of the same people who think africa is a country & not a continent, therefore all africans are the same. and it's a selective interpretation of the term genocide, painting it as some sort of final verdict, removed from concrete individual acts, to be applied to what essentially remains only a label - american indians.

in the end, what it gets down to -- and here's where it ties in w/ what i draw from matt's ignorant opinions expressed above -- is a very incomplete set of information from which one draws inferences & judgements, relying instead on a preponderance of subjective biases & received impressions.

it's much simpler to generalize & reduce things in the manner than suits ones (limited) worldview -- to quote tomaž mastnak: "truisms are stilts upon which common sense walks out of what it either cannot or does not want to grasp" -- though occasionally there is no other option to this, as enough accessible information on which to form adequate understandings simply doesn't exist.

the very media in which these dialogues are taking place, the web, however, provides a priceless opportunity to close those types of gaps w/ the wealth of resources available w/ only a modicum of effort. (among other objectives, closing those gaps is what i understand the project here at MoA to be about.)

getting back to the original point re genocide, lemkin, who coined the term, defined genocide in terms of nation, not race.

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

even using the popular citation of there having been 500 indigenous nations in north america, a low estimate as i recall reading, though i don't have time to dig for references right now, to reduce the genocide to one collective experience of all these national groups is contemptuous.

lemkin also makes it clear that there is both a physical and a cultural genocide, the latter possible w/o the literal bloodshed of the former (massacres).

Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization by the oppressor's own nationals.

using this understanding of genocide, from its source, there is thus no reason to equivocate around the issue that a mob of genocides, of both phases, have indeed been perpetrated against indigenous peoples of the territories now claimed by the USG.

once it became no longer possible to engage in outright massacres, other forms of extermination stepped up to kill off the indian, nearly all of them institutionalized

for instance, here's a well-known quote from lt. richard henry pratt, who used his experience in handling POW detainees to found the first indian education schools in the united states,

A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has been an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.

Posted by: b real | Dec 26 2008 20:08 utc | 43