4 ms·

More American Exceptionalism and Navel Gazing (tm) This is not history, but rather rhetoric and nationalistic propaganda. As an American by birth and upbringin

More American Exceptionalism and Navel Gazing (tm) This is not history, but rather rhetoric and nationalistic propaganda. As an American by birth and upbringing, I really wish that these people would travel and realize: 1) every nation has their "unique and special history" 2) every nation uses that mythology to boost national pride 3) this nationalistic "but we are special" tone only functions for a given domestic audience, given that this is its intended target 4) It therefore contributes NOTHING to international relations & dialogue. Imagine the silly world of 2018 where Belgians would still go on and on about the Belgian revolution vis-a-vis the Dutch. Get over it. It's literally history. While the "reformist" historians that the author decries may indeed turn things inside out and distort the lense in an effort to expiate our national sins (which really were sins and shouldn't be defended ad nauseaum) the author himself seems to have divorced himself from any concept of academic dispassionate truth-telling and be actively engaged in defending nationalist propaganda to a laughably obvious degree. The author should visit nations where actual dictators former and present have created similar "Gods Children" mythos and realize the banal stupidity of such a position as adults in a world we all share. God does not prefer any grouping of humans to another, and most definitely does not approve of politics nor nationalism. God told me this just now, so you can rest assured that it's true. The author and his myopic defenders may accuse me of being a "Left Wing Radical" (tm) to which I may response "indeed" given another context. In this particular context I'm merely 1) right 2) being the voice of reason in the face of emotional rhetoric defending a belief system with the full force of a religion, quite a dangerous belief system, when you consider that. Please, no operating heavy machinery under the influence of "I am the son of Amon Ra" nonsense...

justaaron 8y ago
Oh, my favorite "attempted rhetorical device" is definitely a line from one of the first paragraphs: "but since patriotism doesn’t have the appeal it used to have, Arnold’s treason seems not to matter as much anymore." Patria, patriotism, authors particular definition of it, true patriot, false patriot, other interpretations, etc. Wanker.
natecavanaugh 8y ago
> The author and his myopic defenders may accuse me of being a "Left Wing Radical" (tm) I wouldn't, I would just politely disagree, though I wouldn't consider myself a myopic defender of the author (I haven't read the book the article references). Personally, since you mentioned being an American by birth and upbringing, I think you're in a spot where you're far more sensitive to the sins of those you were closest to. I've been a conservative for most of my life and have found myself feeling betrayed and disgusted by my own party since Trump, and I'm far more attuned to seeing the flaws of the right now, and has me questioning alot of rhetoric hearing and even repeating during my life. But both parties are inhabited by slicksters and con men who angle for power, and instead of focusing on the fact that both parties have problems, I try to just critically examine my own assumptions and try to give the benefit of the doubt to the opposing side. But when I hear BS from either side, I try to call it as it is. As far as the article, I didn't read it as proselytizing American greatness, but rather a retelling of why the man's name is so indelibly engraved as a euphemism for betrayal in American culture. I don't think it's a radical claim to admit that there have been a couple of generations academics who have been far more focused on the sins of the founding fathers while at the same time completely ignoring the sins of any individuals who may have been part of the disenfranchised or abused groups. That to me is intellectual dishonesty. I think deifying or demonizing the founders is wrong, but the article didn't strike me as trying to do either but rather trying to tell what's actually a pretty interesting story about a complex person, whose story seems to be simplified by one side or the other. But perhaps I'm naive, that's for you to decide :)
kbenson 8y ago
> More American Exceptionalism and Navel Gazing (tm) This is not history, but rather rhetoric and nationalistic propaganda. I read it as a rather damming characterization of the revolution and those behind it and participating in it, in both an ideological and logistical sense. It is an article about how someone generally vilified as a great traitor for his greed might have had more complex motivations. Do you have specific instances in the article you would like to point out to support your point? Since my interpretation of it is at odds with your assesment of it, I'm left wondering if you actually are addressing the article in question, as your first paragraph seems to to indicate, or if you are just using it as a stepping stone to launch into your own diatribe? I don't condemn you for holding those views, but I do condemn you for both forcing them into a conversation in a way they don't fit and with such condescension as to be detrimental to useful discussion. To do so implies that the reason for you speaking out was not inform or discuss, but simply to vent ant the expense of others, which is selfish in nature.

justaaron 8y ago

Oh, my favorite "attempted rhetorical device" is definitely a line from one of the first paragraphs: "but since patriotism doesn’t have the appeal it used to have, Arnold’s treason seems not to matter as much anymore." Patria, patriotism, authors particular definition of it, true patriot, false patriot, other interpretations, etc. Wanker.

natecavanaugh 8y ago

> The author and his myopic defenders may accuse me of being a "Left Wing Radical" (tm) I wouldn't, I would just politely disagree, though I wouldn't consider myself a myopic defender of the author (I haven't read the book the article references). Personally, since you mentioned being an American by birth and upbringing, I think you're in a spot where you're far more sensitive to the sins of those you were closest to. I've been a conservative for most of my life and have found myself feeling betrayed and disgusted by my own party since Trump, and I'm far more attuned to seeing the flaws of the right now, and has me questioning alot of rhetoric hearing and even repeating during my life. But both parties are inhabited by slicksters and con men who angle for power, and instead of focusing on the fact that both parties have problems, I try to just critically examine my own assumptions and try to give the benefit of the doubt to the opposing side. But when I hear BS from either side, I try to call it as it is. As far as the article, I didn't read it as proselytizing American greatness, but rather a retelling of why the man's name is so indelibly engraved as a euphemism for betrayal in American culture. I don't think it's a radical claim to admit that there have been a couple of generations academics who have been far more focused on the sins of the founding fathers while at the same time completely ignoring the sins of any individuals who may have been part of the disenfranchised or abused groups. That to me is intellectual dishonesty. I think deifying or demonizing the founders is wrong, but the article didn't strike me as trying to do either but rather trying to tell what's actually a pretty interesting story about a complex person, whose story seems to be simplified by one side or the other. But perhaps I'm naive, that's for you to decide :)

kbenson 8y ago

> More American Exceptionalism and Navel Gazing (tm) This is not history, but rather rhetoric and nationalistic propaganda. I read it as a rather damming characterization of the revolution and those behind it and participating in it, in both an ideological and logistical sense. It is an article about how someone generally vilified as a great traitor for his greed might have had more complex motivations. Do you have specific instances in the article you would like to point out to support your point? Since my interpretation of it is at odds with your assesment of it, I'm left wondering if you actually are addressing the article in question, as your first paragraph seems to to indicate, or if you are just using it as a stepping stone to launch into your own diatribe? I don't condemn you for holding those views, but I do condemn you for both forcing them into a conversation in a way they don't fit and with such condescension as to be detrimental to useful discussion. To do so implies that the reason for you speaking out was not inform or discuss, but simply to vent ant the expense of others, which is selfish in nature.