The Hispanic living in Texas who speaks no English is not an American in the cultural sense even if he or she has become a naturalized citizen, or was born on American soil. The others are bound together by their shared culture, which includes political culture but a great many other characteristics besides.
EEEEEHH! Thankyouforplaying. In what way do you think that he is not an American? In what fasion do you think he is unAmerican simply because he is hispanic or does not speak english. I think, prehaps, you spent too much time talking with racists. 
It’s happened before, hasn’t it? In the Warring States Period, the Three Kingdoms period, etc. But there was always a recognized cultural unity. Confucius could and did travel outside of his home state of Lu, and serve in the governments of other states, without being considered a foreigner. Actually, the Chinese civilization expanded from its original homeland in the Yellow River valley and assimilated a lot of originally non-Han peoples, simultaneously swamping them with Han colonists (or sometimes, Han refugees) – but now, most of them think of themselves as Chinese, as Han, and indeed they are. (With the exceptions of some nationalities that remain unassimilated and self-consciously different, such as the Tibetans, Uighurs, Yi and Mongols.) Rather like America assimilating immigrants, except that the process included territorial expansion and took many centuries longer.
He is not an American because he does not speak English and his world-view has not been formed by growing up in the environment of American culture. Just like the people of Puerto Rico – who are born Americans in a legal sense, but cannot really be part of the American cultural nation unless they move to the States proper and spend a lot of years here – preferably, their formative years.
Again, Michael Lind – this is from his book The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution (The Free Press, 1995), Chapter 7, “Liberal Nationalism: The Trans-American Melting Pot”:
Not “Unamerican”, but simply “not American”. Rather than participating in the general “American” culture, however you choose to define it, he participates in a different culture, one that (if he is living in Texas) likely has its roots in northern Mexico, with its own language ways, food ways, religious practices, superstitions, music, dance, and all the other ways that make up a culture. Whether he was born an American citizen or is an immigrant makes no difference. If I move to, say, Spain, and become a Spanish citizen, that does not make me a member of the Spanish culture (especially as I know scarcely a word in the language). Even if I eventually became fluent in Spanish, the fact that I grew up in a totally different culture would stay with me. I could (with several years’ worth of effort) become a member of the Spanish culture, but it would be a lot of work, and I still would never have the degree of familiarity with it that someone who was raised there would.
What if he was raised in America? He speaks Spanish as a native language (perhaps with some English, but there are plenty of neighborhoods here in Texas where you never need to learn English, since it isn’t the official language of this country, and most everything in Texas is written in both English and Spanish). He tends to eat foods and take part in events that his family brought from Mexico. However, he believes his vote matters, that he can make it if he works hard enough, and other such trappings of American culture. I contend that he is American, and that’s the whole point. We aren’t defined by our food or whether or not we celebrate Cinco de Mayo; we’re defined by things different in kind from the things that define most nations, such as a strong belief in democracy and the “American dream”. The same goes no matter what language you speak, what religion you practice, what food you consume, or what music you dance to; none of these have anything to do with being American.
Well don, Jon the Geek. Very well put.
BrainGlutton I think you are confusing one sense of American culture with another. I think that you could put a case together, as Mr Lind seems to have, that there exists an American culture in the classic sense of the word culture. You could add up all of the religions, cohesive behaviors, differentiating behaviors, and whatever else makes up a culture which occur in America and call that “American Culture”. Whatever that is, however, is not what is meant by American Exceptionalism. I could understand your fear if it were. But it is not.
No, pervert, I accept the idea that there is a distinctive and unique American culture – I have said so several times in this thread. And I do not believe that culture necessarily implies American exceptionalism – which is what I reject.
Jon the Geek,
Thanks for elucidating what I wanted to say. The list of people I provided was to illustrate the point of what, exactly, binds these people who are from such different backgrounds. If the notion of America as a NATION (a group of people with a common heritage) is to be understood and accepted as such, then the things that bind this disparate group with one another are the ideas/ideals that have shaped this country.
A person can be born in this country and speak no English; maybe his forebears were from Mexico (or a part of the US that had been part of the Spanish Empire/Mexico for centuries) and is familiar and comfortable with the cultural heritage of his forebears. But if he believes in the tenents of our forefathers - of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; if he believes in the supremacy of the Constitution; if he believes and participates in the political process; if he suscribes to the belief of a free press, of serperation of church and state, of a right to bear arms, etc. If he believes in all those things that have become part of the American mythos, then in his heart and in his mind he is an American.
That, to me, is how I think about and understand the concept of American Exceptionalism. That’s what makes us different from other countries. Does it make us better or make us predestined to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world? I don’t necessarily think so, but that can be left for another debate.
Right, but what you are dnying is that there is some element in American history, shared experience, mythos even which is distinct from culture as we understand it. Go back and look at the last quote from Mr. Lind you posted. Note the “Though in these respects the predominant American nation is more inclusive than other nations that are more homogeneous in descent and religion,”. Note also that he admits that the diverse group after being newly sworn in as citizens are in fact, American citizens. That they do not have to pass any other tests for their full measure of legal rights and opportunities. This is the bit of the American experience, friend BrainGlutton, that is meant by the American dream. It is the bit which is meant by American Exceptionalism.
One could certianly say that America is this group of people who accept more outsiders into their culture than other cultures have done, traditionally. But that would be missing the context (history) of America entirely. The thing which makes America uniquely unique is that it was formed for the express purpose of providing space for as many cultures as possible.
I’ll grant you that the founding fathers meant something different than we do when they wrote “All men are created equal…”. But that is what they wrote. And to the best of their ability, they meant just that.
I’ll also grant that we have not lived up to this ideal in the past. In one way or another we never have. Yet, it has remained an American ideal throughout times when other aspects of American culture were changing.
I realize that you would rather America was some sort of conglomeration of people thrown together completely by accident. This would make it easier to propose any sort of changes to the American system of government that might strike your fancy. But simply noting that there exists a culture within America which is simalar in kind to other cultures is far from proof that there is not something else about America which is exceptional.
No it wasn’t, it just kind of worked out that way. Jefferson and Franklin were not merely white supremacists, they were Saxon supremacists and they envisioned their country as remaining a predominantly Anglo-Saxon nation for all time. But later generations did not remain true to that vision.
What makes you think that I would prefer that? America is, in fact, a conglomeration of indigenous Indians; settlers who came over from Britain for various economic or religious reasons; blacks who were brought over in the holds of slave ships; and other immigrant groups who came seeking a better life in a rich land, or fled from oppressive governments at home, or both. None of this is “by accident” except in the general sense of the accidents of history. The settlers and immigrants came here on purpose, and the blacks and Indians were people things happened to. So it was. As an American, I am comfortable enough being one of the products of our national story.
As I said above, I am not a Marxist and do not subscribe to Marxist version of “American exceptionalism,” although I do find it an informative idea. I am a socialist and I see nothing un-American about socialism as such, no reason why it is fundamentally incompatible with the culture of the United States or any other society. I am a small-d democrat and democracy is much, much more important to me than socialism – I would much rather live in a capitalist democracy than any kind of non-democratic socialist state. And I direct your attention again to Lind’s review of Lipset’s American Exceptionalism: “[P]olitical culture–American, Japanese, or any other–is as much a response to social institutions and public policies as an explanation for them.”
They may have been. But the documents they created which formed this country were not. Why is there no clause in the Federal Constitution or any of the state constitutions which bear out what you are saying. You cannot simply suggest without proof that some of the founding fathers were of any particular culture and assume that the nation they built was designed to be of that culture. This is the same mistake the Christian Nation guys make. You have to read what they wrote. And more specifically you have to read what they enacted into the constitution and subsequent laws.
Actually, one of your reasons for supporting American intervention in the Sudan and Rwanda was that it was not in our best interests, and that we had nothing to gain by it.
It still strikes me very much as an example of special pleading. You argue that we should not intervene in Iraq because there is nothing exceptional about the US, but we should intervene in Rwanda and the Sudan because there is.
The basic question remains. Why should the US intervene where the rest of the world prefers to turn its head? If the UN isn’t going to do anything about Rwanda, why should the US intervene? Why is there a “special American mission” in Rwanda, but not Iraq?
If you are just arguing that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, that may or may not be the case, but you can’t argue that on the principle that the US has no special duty to act in the world to reform obnoxious governments. Because you are immediately arguing that the US does have that duty in the case of Rwanda and the Sudan, because they have obnoxious governments.
Regards,
Shodan
What would have to happen for “Chinese” to become parallel to “European” rather than “French” or “German”?
BG, Did you see my post from yesterday? I asked if you were even willing to allow different types of nations.
No, not the United States in particular. I merely think intervention might be beneficial (in the case of Rwanda, might have been beneficial) – but not necessarily America’s responsibility. If France or Germany or Britain or a combined EU defense force were to do it (and bear the risk and expense), so much the better – just so long as it gets done and the killing is stopped.
People in Szechuan don’t even speak the same language* as people in Guangdong – but they still have a shared sense of national and cultural identity much stronger than any shared by the French and the Germans. That’s just how it is, right or wrong.
*They don’t speak the same language – but the Chinese ideographic writing system is an auxiliary language in its own right, and people who can’t communicate orally can still read and uhderstand each other’s words if written down. They can also understand the original text of the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze. How many English-speakers could read Beowulf in the original Old English? That may be a factor underlying the Chinese sense of cultural unity.
I’d decide that on a case-by-case basis, based on likely outcomes.
American intervention in Kosovo was effective and stopped the genocide there. Bill Clinton promised the Albanian Kosovar refugees they would go home, safe and free – and they did. (There was then some regrettable counter-violence against Serbs in Kosovo – but it was still the best that could be make of a very bad situation.) Do you question that intervention was a good idea in this case? Do you grudge the money spent on it?
Intervention in Rwanda – might or might not have been effective. Remember, in that situation it was not the government doing the killing, it was more a matter of ethnic hatreds on the ground working themselves out with no government to stop them.
In Sudan, there’s some of both – the Arab militias are operating on their own but getting some assistance from Khartoum. That’s why I reserve judgment on whether intervention there (by the U.S., France, or anybody else) would work. But if it would work, somebody should do it.
My question was whether or not the US should act if it won’t be done otherwise.
For better or worse, the US is the world’s only remaining superpower. In cases where the UN is paralyzed by conflicts of interest or simple incompetence, it is generally the US that is expected to intervene.
It is our preeminence in military and economic power that leads to other nations’ expectation that we will act when no one else will. That’s what I understand by “American exceptionalism”.
Regards,
Shodan
So then your objection is not in principle, merely in jugement. Would you object to other nations doing the same, and if (say) Russia wants to intervene in Sudan they could?