In understanding anti-Americanism we must first clarify the ideals articulating quintessential Americanism. Culturally, Americanism calls for individual civil rights and liberties protected by a secular federal government that operates under the absolute rule of law as interpreted from The Constitution by a supreme judicial enterprise whose power is checked and balanced by an executive branch and a legislature. Politically, however, Americanism lacks such consistency, especially with regard to its foreign affairs. From George Washington explicitly warning against geopolitical entanglements in his 1796 farewell address to the CIA of the 1980s supporting Afghan Mujahideen fighters to combat communist expansion, to billions of dollars in funding …show more content…
Because democracy is defined by the American elite as the ability to “maximize profit” in a nation, it is not wholly unfair to suggest that freedom has come to mean the freedom to shop 24 hours a day. Equality boils down to the availability of similar products in similar department stores, and democracy becomes conflated with “consumer choice.” It is now more than three centuries since US policy-makers during the American Revolution in 1776 used slogans urging Americans either to “join or die.” This slogan has only slightly changed into “either you are with us or against us” in the time of George W. Bush. This policy was even clearly stated at the time of the presidency of George Bush Sr, when launching “the new world order” argument in 1989. The Clinton campaign in 1993 started with Al Gore’s geographical policy, reflected in his book Earth in Balance, which gives grounds for global interference in local issues in the name of preventing global environmental destabilization due to unregulated levels of pollution. So, American global policy has been based on unilateral leadership for the last three hundred years. Recent examples of the resulting preparedness to extend political interference in other territories include Panama (1989), Iraq and Kuwait (1990), …show more content…
withdrawal from Iraq, have had appallingly little effect on Arab attitudes toward the United States. Anti-Americanism might have died down momentarily, but it is once again flowering fiercely. Militant Islamism is on the rise (most emphatically in the inception of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS), and jihadist subcultures are expanding; and the liberal and secular factions that might have seemed like natural American allies are now voicing some of the loudest complaints: they are angry at the United States when its military intervenes in the region (in Libya) and when it does not (in Syria), and they are outraged when Washington supports democratic elections (in Egypt, where Islamists won) and when it does not (in Bahrain, for
The post- American world coming in to view is not a Wilsonian world; a world where there is democracy, peace, and free market (Mandelbaum, 2002), but rather a Hobbesian world. A world based on anarchy, in which there is a struggle for big power; Thucydides wrote that “the strong do what they can and the weak put up with what they must (Seau, 2013).” What has unfolded in this post- American world is not a Wilsonian platform, with views of democracy and freedom, but rather what is presently unfolding is pure chaos and a power tug of war. This paper sets out to explore why the post- American world that is shaping up, and why it is not a Wilsonian world, but rather a Hobbesian world- using examples from several scholars, who explored the loss of culture, fear baiting, and economic and military holdings.
Understanding the Term American Ideology Ideology is a set of core beliefs, formulate answers to political questions and problems, the freedom to be whatever you want to be. In a broad sense American Ideology is considered be the freedom to be whatever you want to be, to be different, to have diversity in the greatest sense, to be free from political and religious persecution. In this essay I will look in depth into the fundamental aspects exist in the American Ideology. I will then look at aspects across US History to determine how, if at all, the Ideology has changed, focusing primarily on Black Civil Rights from the Post Civil War era to the Civil Rights period of the 1960's.
There is no doubt that, in today’s increasingly global society, foreign policy is an extremely important aspect of American activities. However, despite that importance, most Americans are either extremely apathetic, or extremely adverse to most foreign policy measures. Citizens have increasingly shown a preference to remain out of the world’s problems as much as possible. In 2013, the Pew Research center conducted a survey to find out what percentage of Americans believe that the United States should “mind its own business internationally”; a 52% majority agreed, compared to 30% in 2002, and an even smaller 20% in 1964. And according to Capital Communications Group, studies show that 95% of Americans have little to no interest in foreign policy
America’s role in the establishing of Israel marked the beginning of resentment among many Arabs and Muslims communities (Evara, Stratmann & Natta 2007). With this political stand, the US was forced to adopt policies that conflicted with major political movements in the region, namely secular pan-Arabism and Islamic fundamentalism. Egypt was on the forefront pushing for the first movement; it described its position on the Middle East and the rest of the world. Both the movements called for unity among the Muslim and Arabic community. Consequently they alienated the western countries, to an extent of advocating for violence. In 1991 the relationship was complicated further when the US led the gulf war against Iraq. However the more recent September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America soil hig...
“Conduct and action,” wrote Roger Tawney, “…are a proof that the gift [of salvation] has been accorded.” Such was the classic 16th and 17th century Puritan mentality. Wealth and material abundance were a sign not of hard work, but of God’s grace, and mediocrity a sign of pending damnation. Success and riches were not only admired, they were idolized. Puritans equated wealth with merit, regardless of true character. Few examples of the utter stagnation of humanity are so accurate and descriptive as F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby.” The American ethos in the 1920s had not evolved in the least, as is especially clear in Fitzgerald’s tale through Nick’s interactions with Tom and Daisy, Myrtle Wilson, and even the great Jay Gatsby.
The issue of hatred directed toward America is of great debate today, as it was after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Nothing represents that point better than the discussion between Gore Vidal, Robert Higgs, and Dinesh D’Souza. The contrasting viewpoints of Mr. D’Souza and Mr. Vidal are blended very well by Higgs (although he does seem to lean more toward the views of Vidal) and it seems to be a very productive conversation about how we came to be so respected and hated at the same time. The questions asked throughout the talk are meant to decipher between a love, a disdain, and a fear for what is commonly referred to as the “most powerful nation in the world.”
Ideology and US Foreign Policy by Michael Hunt introduces a retelling of American political history where he argues that ideology is the main force behind foreign policy. Hunt argues that there are three reasons behind the force, which include concepts of “national greatness”, foreign policy is mostly composed of racial and culture ideology and the United State’s ideological position on revolutions throughout the development of its history. Hunt states that these three ideas are what determine the United State’s involvement in foreign policy and are embedded in its ideological viewpoint which was influenced by the Declaration of Independence and “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine (Hunt 19).
Due to this great influence of the US in the international arena, debates have ensued concerning the impacts of America’s excessive involvement in international matters. Most Americans today are of divided opinions on international policies their leaders expose them to and the question making the rounds is whether those policies are worth all the inputs expended by the US government. Structurally and politically America is democratic. One of the key things it takes to the international community is that it wants the “whole” world to be democratic. It wants people to believe what it believes in. this has more been championed by members of the Congress and the executive and it all amounts into asking whether these two institutions are becoming a liability or an asset to the Americans at large. ...
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
The definition of an American, is someone who is a citizen of the United States. Many African Americans, and immigrants struggled to become actual Americans in their lifetimes, because others didn 't see them as actual people; and based it on the color of someone. In today 's world people who live in America consider themselves as Americans, but to me there is certain qualities that make a person an American. To me being a true American is not based off of what Country they were born in, or what race their parents are, or even if they were immigrated to the United States. People from all over the world would say that maybe people could base this off of someone 's family heritage, or where they were before they came to America. If you were asked what makes an American an American what would you base it off of? To me there are four specific characteristics that make a person a true American; those three things would be, freedom, individuality, belief in the country, and happiness.
Eagle Rules? Foreign Policy and American Primacy in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Robert J. Lieber. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002. 152-172.
Why should we fear the changes of Americanization? Change could always be for the better. Coming together from different ethnicities can benefit different strengths as a nation. The film covers a lot that goes on and touches base with a lot of problems we have all over. I understand that things will never be exactly equal but if we work on becoming one our nation would be great. I don't see any fears with Americanization "changing" only because it should.
Previously, the United States and its citizens closely held to the beliefs of isolationism and non-interventionalism. These beliefs stem from George Washington’s 1796 farewell address where he stated, “… to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”
This book is written from a perspective foreign to most Americans. Historically, American students are taught from a single perspective, that being the American perspective. This approach to history (the single perspective) dehumanizes the enemy and glorifies the Americans. We tend to forget that those on the opposing side are also human.