[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I know, I know, but it’s bullshit. As is any form of American exceptionalism.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting thread, BrainGlutton. I didn’t read all of it, but I think I was able to get a sense of what your opponents’ arguments were, and since I don’t want to bring that other thread back from the dead, I will briefly respond to them here.
There point seems to be that the sense of being “American” is strongly tied to the US’s political culture. Americans hold their political and economic system in very high regard, especially their constitution, and the fact that it guarantees their freedom. As well, by moving to America and sharing this committment to a free society, anyone can become “American”. Indeed, the US is a nation of immigrants, starting from the British who first came there, to the Irish, French, Polish, Italians, Chinese, etc. who came since the US became an independent country.
On the other hand, other countries’ (in your opponents’ viewpoint, that is) national identity seems based more on ethnic considerations. What is a Frenchman? Well, it is someone who lives in France, speaks French, and takes part in France’s culture, which isn’t that strongly linked to France’s political culture. As you said (I think it was you), since 1789, France has gone through two monarchies, five republics, two empires, as well as German occupation (at least twice, I think) and a fascist puppet state. But, while its culture has evolved, it can be said to have remained the same nation.
In other words, this is the old civic/ethnic nationalism dichotomy expressed in other terms (as I said, I didn’t read the other thread in its entirety, so if someone brought this argument there, I’m sorry). American nationalism is seen as different from other countries’ (and, for many people, better) since it is based on sharing a common political goal instead of belonging to a culture and ethnicity by virtue of blood. It has the added benefit of allowing anyone who wants to to join the American nation. Joining the French nation, for example, isn’t as easy.
But what your opponents seem to forget is that American nationalism isn’t all civic, it also has its ethnic component; and many other countries have also tried to express their national identity in civic or liberal terms in the past as well. For example, while the US doesn’t have any official language (as civic nationalists will often proudly remind us), it’s quite obvious that knowing English is almost necessary to live and work in the US. This “English” also has to be Standard American English (not Ebonics or however you call it), and, as xtisme, himself an immigrant from Mexico – or child of immigrants, I’m not sure – said in another thread, you have to learn to speak it like a native. This does have a “civic” justification (ensuring that people can understand each other), but at the same time, it’s part of the effort to make the American people “one”.
As well, other countries have at time tried to define their national identity in terms of subscribing to a founding ideology instead of being part of an ethnic group. Consider France, as mentioned earlier. France’s motto is “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”, a civic goal if there is one. France isn’t as ethnically and linguistically homogeneous as some would think; people in Brittany, Corsica and the Basque country don’t come from the same roots, and the French government made a conscious decision to make French the only language of the country. Whether you think it was a worthy goal, whether you think it was done for civic or ethnic considerations (I could argue both ways), the fact remains that the same thing happens in the US, people have to learn to use English to be part of the nation. The only difference is that the US uses economic pressure instead of political or educational pressure to enforce this policy.
As for those who think that the American nation will somehow die, if only to be replaced with another one, if ever the US becomes a monarchy or a dictatorship, consider this. I live in Quebec. Sixty years ago or so, we were a strongly Catholic nation, where the Church was involved in politics, education, pretty much everything. Sharing in this ideology was necessary to be part of the nation. Today, we have become so secular that some people (link to a letter to the newspaper Le Devoir, in French) are arguing that our elites have made secularism into a new religion and that it is starting to influence our capacity to integrate immigrants, particularly Muslims, who may be very deeply religious. Whether you agree with him or not, the fact remains that we replaced an ideology with another that is almost opposite, but we continued existing as a nation.