Well, they’ve got a superficial point at least : in Europe - well, Western Europe at least, can’t talk about the Balkans as I’ve never been there. And Greece is of course currently coming down with a slight case of the fascists - but you hardly ever see people waving flags around or bearing their own country’s flag on their clothes.
In the US, it seems y’all have star-spangled everything down to bikinis, of all things. Honestly, if I were to meet a person proudly wearing a *tricolore *t-shirt or hanging a French flag anywhere on their house or lawn for anything but a soccer match, I’d assume them to be far-right blockheads.
And don’t get me started on the Pledge of Allegiance. Suffice to say it’s creepy as hell :).
Hawaii and Philippines are good examples, as they were nationalist based seizures based on an imperialist desire to establish an “American Empire.”
But essentially we had two truly imperialist American administrations, that of McKinley and Roosevelt. I should note that I never said “America never experienced nationalism or anything bad from it”, so none of these examples is countering a point that I actually made. The point I made is Europeans caused two world wars and mass genocides over nationalism. The United States did not, end of discussion on that front.
If you want to compare blow for blow, it’s hard to, because the record of Europe is so much worse. We basically had the Philippines and a few scattered islands we got from the Spanish-American War. You could argue the Panama Canal Zone as well.
But compare that to the European subjugation of the entire Indian subcontinent, most of Africa, the Middle East, and large swathes of the far east. Hell, just the Belgians alone in the Congo were worse than all the ills of American nationalism/imperialism combined.
America got into that game late and exited it essentially with the Wilson presidency (we maintained some of our holdings afterward but we didn’t continue with imperialist policies after that point.) So no, we aren’t comparable to Europeans when it comes to nationalist ills or imperialist ills.
The Mexican-American War was not what I would define as an imperialist or nationalist war. It was a straight up, conquerors desire for land. Not all conquests of land are nationalist. Nationalism is a specific thing, and you can’t attribute every bad or selfish thing a country does to nationalism. The Prussians and Russians didn’t carve up Poland in the 18th century out of nationalism, it was monarchist based expansionary desires, for example.
The entire Western world went through a strong period of nationalism in the latter 19th century. It resulted in wars over things that previously we hadn’t fought wars over. When the Prussian King and the Russian Czar went at each other it was over their personal desire to expand their land holdings and wealth and power. Even the UK which was not run that way was warring to expand its land holdings for fun and profit, so to speak.
This is very different from say, Germans deciding they want every piece of land where a German speaking population lives. That’s indeed, quite a different motivation than simple territorial ones. It’s also different from every little ethnic group in the Balkans deciding it was time to enter a generational long period of fighting to carve out their own enclaves.
I think you are the closest to “getting it”, but it seems like some people here totally missed my point. The nationalist movement in Europe created lots of very bad consequences for both the world and Europeans. The nationalism movement in the United States basically resulted in us having a collection of overseas territories, most of them small islands (aside from the Philippines), that we eventually either got rid of or kept in a more equitable arrangement. It did not result in lots of terrible wars, the Philippine Insurrection was the worst impact of our nationalist/imperialist days.
For Europeans it’s the Holocaust, World War II and World War I. That’s my point–America never suffered anything like those traumatic events because of nationalism, so it’s unlikely we would be so hyper-vigilant “against” nationalism as Europeans are.
But you are correct, Europeans are still quite nationalist. But there is also a strong vein of keeping overt public displays minimized and much stronger understanding in Europe that nationalism can be a very bad thing.
OK, Hyde, I see what you’re saying now. The desire to unify the German-speaking territories is a little bit different thing from US expansionism. But the US expansionism is not non-nationalistic, nor a weaker nationalism, but a stronger one: the insistence on moving into an area with your ethnicity, and then insisting that area must be one of yours from now on.
Claiming some moral superiority of USA “pioneers” over Third Reich “Pioniere” because the USA didn’t already have long-established English settlements to “unify”? Nonsensical!
Their descendants in a literal, genetic sense. Not so much. But their intellectual descendants? Most certainly. The same “City upon a Hill” mythology promulgated by John Winthrop in 1630 was revived for political usage within living memory by both JFK and Reagan. This is to say nothing of the religious underpinnings of American Exceptionalism in general, and Manifest Destiny in particular.
:dubious: I seem to recall that within six years of the signing of the treaty which formally ended the American Revolution, in that same host country, Europe’s most populous and prosperous at the time, another revolution broke out which included widescale sackings of churches and murders of priests as part of an effort to exterminate Catholicism in the realm. There is no American analogue.
I think it is you who are the confused one here. You are equating nationalism with revanchism, when you refer in a subsequent post on this page to “Germans deciding they want every piece of land where a German speaking population lives”, when they are in fact separate, but related concepts.
Nationalism was but one of many different preconditions or causes for WW1 (and at any rate, the US was also a willing belligerent in this war. Or is it only the Austro-Hungarians who should bear all the blame?) You could make a case that it was more strongly responsible for WW2, but even here, your example of German revanchism was certainly not one of its causes; by the time Chamberlain returned from Munich, Hitler had already satisfied the near totality of German irredentist claims, with the acquisition of the Rhineland, the Saarland, Austria, and the Sudetenland. His destruction of the Czechoslovak rump state and subsequent attack on Poland had nothing to do with German minorities extant in those areas.
There is so much American exceptionalism and hand-waving in this post that one could reasonably construct a seminar or college course around its deconstruction. I have neither the time nor inclination to go through every one of your tendentious claims. I’ll just pick this one sentence of yours:
“America got into that game late and exited it essentially with the Wilson presidency (we maintained some of our holdings afterward but we didn’t continue with imperialist policies after that point.)”
I’m pretty sure that the people of the Philippines, Mexico, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Guatemala, Chile, Liberia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, China, and Vietnam (off the top of my head - there are others) might have a different take on that. I’d also note that the US military has about 1,000 bases overseas in more than 130 nations.
Fuji: I think there is a meaningful difference between imperialism and aggressive defense of national interests. Your list is simply too long, too inclusive.
Iran, for goodness sake? Yes, we toppled one leader, propped up another, and made blunder after blunder. But that’s not “imperialism.”
By the most limiting definition, imperialism requires some kind of colonialism. I won’t go quite that far. But I think your definition is too loose, and too all-embracing.
Uh, guys? Imperialism and colonialism and such is fascinating and all, but weren’t we supposed to discuss why religious belief has eroded in Europe but not in the United States?
You guys are deeply confused, that just because I say something isn’t nationalist it means it’s “not bad.” Morally speaking a plunderer’s desire for land, which is what i basically view the Mexican American war to be, is clearly immoral. I also think that nationalist concepts like breaking up surrounding countries and stealing parts of them that you define as “belonging” to your nation is also immoral.
One isn’t better or worse than the other inherently, both are essentially immoral behaviors.
I am fine with U.S. behavior in the Mexican American war, though. International Relations isn’t really a moral game and in the 1800s it was “to the mighty go the spoils”, Mexico wasn’t mighty. Same for the Indians tribes. We can cry and wring our hands about it all we want, but I don’t really understand why. Modern day German political leaders still visit Holocaust sites and say things about the Holocaust. That makes sense, that’s a grave living memory crime. I would expect American leaders to still be speaking out against Jim Crow era behaviors and etc.
But it’s odd people often want to paint America as somehow being intrinsically immoral because of its 19th century conquests. Any sizable Western country that exists today spent the lion’s share of the 19th century conquering and acting immorally in its own self interest and I don’t see a lot of people trying to “enforce angst” against the residents of those countries on message boards.
This isn’t American exceptionalism at all, which is probably the most overused term ever and always comes out anytime you point out something bad about Europeans. This is a recognition of reality, that America’s conquests in the 19th century were not based on the nationalist movement. Not everything is opaque, it’s fairly obvious from history nationalism had far worse effects in Europe and because of how it went down in Europe than it did in the United States. That’s really not questioned. This argument is akin to an American saying slavery wasn’t any worse in America because Europe practiced slavery too and engaged in the slave trade. On the slavery issue America was far worse in the 19th century than most other countries aside from a select few. On nationalism, America never went to the unpleasant extremes Europe did, end of discussion.
The root cause of WW1 was empire, or more specifically lack of it. The root cause of WW2 was the scale and consequences of reparations from the first war.
So not much about Europeans going fucking crazy with nationalism.
Fwiw, I can’t believe people refer to entire continents and 40 or so nations as an homogenous whole: damn those Europeans and their dabblings in nationalism
Not 50 years ago, but say 30 - 40. Before the Watergate scandal broke, Nixon and Ted Kennedy were working on HCR and it probably would have passed easily. Marijuana use was becoming widely accepted among the young people in many regions; it was illegal of course, but many were beginning to advocate for legalization, and nobody was declaring a war on drugs, yet. We seem to be turning another corner on cannabis. On the other hand, nudity was becoming acceptable in some contexts; for a brief period in the 1970s Venice Beach was actually clothing optional! Today I don’t think there’s a single nude beach between Black’s Beach, near San Diego, and another one near SF whose name I forget. Culturally I think there was premise, in the late 1960s and 1970s that if you didn’t like something the solution was to not look at it, listen to it, or go there as applicable. So you could have things like nude beaches that are pretty much impossible today.
