Myth America

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
Myth America: Historians Take On The Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past
edited by Kevin M. Kruse & Julian E. Zelizer
Basic Books (2022)

This is a collection of 20 essays about American history, from the Founding Fathers through Trump. It looks at various claims of modern political rhetoric, usually of a general nature and primarily those espoused by the Republicans, and examines what historical basis those claims have. It's mostly try to debunk these myths. One of the essays is about Confederate Monuments.

Looking over the list of essayists, I recognize only 1 of 20 names: Akhil Reed Amar (I don't think I've ever read any of this work; the name is simply one I've heard).

I'll leave comments about the chapters as I read them.
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
1. American Exceptionalism
This essay looks this topic from two angles. First is the question of whether the USA is exceptional, especially compared to other countries. It's only dealt with superficially here and is probably a book-length topic. The second is the historic use of the phrase "American exceptionalism" which I was rather surprised to learn was coined by communists and only popularized among conservatives in recent decades, particularly by Newt Gingrich. However, by specifically looking at the phrase "American Exceptionalism" it skips over topics like Manifest Destiny, which was essentially an early form of American Exceptionalism.

2. Founding Myths
This is Akhil Reed Amar's essay and...wow. He has a very strong "voice" and a slightly snarky attitude. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it's certainly memorable. He's a constitutional scholar so he looks at several claims about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Of particular note to Civil War buffs, he's adamant that the Constitution forbid unilateral secession and that the idea would have made George Washington roll over in his grave. He also very explicitly views Washington, not Madison, as THE father of the Constitution. His book America's Constitution: A Biography is definitely going on my To Read list.

3. Vanishing Indians
I skipped this one as I really doubted the author was going to have anything to say on this topic I haven't heard before. There were a lot of Native Americans in the future USA when European colonists had arrived, it wasn't an untouched wilderness, yadda yadda. I'm sure it will be news to some readers though.

4. Immigration
A history of American bias against "bad" immigrants, from Ben Franklin's disdain for Germans to the modern issues with Hispanics. For those of you who have lived under a rock, there used to be a lot of prejudice against Catholics and the Chinese. It's fine, but nothing really new to me.

5. America First
Finally another interesting one. A look at the expression "America First" and the various groups that have used it, from the Know Nothings of the 1850s (hey, another Civil War connection) to "anti-hyphen" prejudice of the 1910s to interwar isolationists to Pat Buchanan. Not only does it have a long history of use, but the author argues it's a dog whistle.

Bonus: Donald Trump bolted the Reform Party because of Pat Buchanan (whom Trump accused of being a neo-Nazi) and David Duke of the KKK, only for Trump to receive Duke's endorsement as presidential candidate.

6. The United States Is An Empire
First essay that got me rolling my eyes. Oklahoma took longer to become a state than the Belgians were in the Congo! Millions of Filipinos died in WW2 because the Philippines were a US colony (uh, no, I'm pretty sure the Japanese would have invaded them no matter who owned them or if they were independent).

My score so far: 2-2-1-1 (Liked / Okay / Disliked / Skipped).

More as I read on...
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
4,668
2. Founding Myths
This is Akhil Reed Amar's essay and...wow. He has a very strong "voice" and a slightly snarky attitude. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it's certainly memorable. He's a constitutional scholar so he looks at several claims about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Of particular note to Civil War buffs, he's adamant that the Constitution forbid unilateral secession and that the idea would have made George Washington roll over in his grave. He also very explicitly views Washington, not Madison, as THE father of the Constitution. His book America's Constitution: A Biography is definitely going on my To Read list.
I have read some of his writings and for the most part I like his work. I agree with his conclusion. I have no thought much about secession since my CWT days

6. The United States Is An Empire
First essay that got me rolling my eyes. Oklahoma took longer to become a state than the Belgians were in the Congo! Millions of Filipinos died in WW2 because the Philippines were a US colony (uh, no, I'm pretty sure the Japanese would have invaded them no matter who owned them or if they were independent).
The Roman Empire was 1.699 million mi², The US is 3.797 million mi² more than 32x, so we are an empire. I don't know why we would not be. Better to be one than not.
3. Vanishing Indians
I skipped this one as I really doubted the author was going to have anything to say on this topic I haven't heard before. There were a lot of Native Americans in the future USA when European colonists had arrived, it wasn't an untouched wilderness, yadda yadda. I'm sure it will be news to some readers though.
Without small pox, Europeans would have a hard time getting a grip here.
 
Last edited:

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,642
Reaction score
3,741
I have read some of his writings and for the most part I like his work. I agree with his conclusion. I have no thought much about secession since my CWT days


The Roman Empire was 1.699 million mi², The US is 3.797 million mi² more than 3x, so we are an empire. I don't know why we would not be. Better to be one than not.

Without small pox, Europeans would have a hard time getting a grip here.
3 x 1,7 = 5,1

just saying
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
The Roman Empire was 1.699 million mi², The US is 3.797 million mi² more than 32x, so we are an empire. I don't know why we would not be. Better to be one than not.
It really depends how you define an empire. Size? Colonies? Having an Emperor/Empress or equivalent monarch?

The essay in this book doesn't argue size, but rather that we treated Native American tribal lands as a form of colony (settler colonialism instead of imperial colonialism) and held what the author considers substantial overseas territories. The author tries to go so far as to suggest having any territory that is federally-governed instead of locally-governed makes you an empire. The kitchen sink treatment is used: from the halfway reasonable examples of Puerto Rico and (in the first half of the 20th century) the Philippines, the weaker examples of continued ownership of Guam and American Samoa, and even the Northwest Territories and District of Columbia which is really stretching the definition.

I guess Australia is an empire because, in addition to 6 provinces, it has 10 territories (including the Australian Capital Territory)! Blimey!
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,642
Reaction score
3,741
It really depends how you define an empire. Size? Colonies? Having an Emperor/Empress or equivalent monarch?

The essay in this book doesn't argue size, but rather that we treated Native American tribal lands as a form of colony (settler colonialism instead of imperial colonialism) and held what the author considers substantial overseas territories. The author tries to go so far as to suggest having any territory that is federally-governed instead of locally-governed makes you an empire. The kitchen sink treatment is used: from the halfway reasonable examples of Puerto Rico and (in the first half of the 20th century) the Philippines, the weaker examples of continued ownership of Guam and American Samoa, and even the Northwest Territories and District of Columbia which is really stretching the definition.

I guess Australia is an empire because, in addition to 6 provinces, it has 10 territories (including the Australian Capital Territory)! Blimey!
how about the behaviour when it comes to smaller fish in the pond?
  • banana wars
  • kermit roosevelt
  • hawaii
  • regime change wherever a government is 'strange'
  • salvator allende

...​
do i need to go on? - that's a mighty fine tall horse of yours​
... and don't bring up my country - we were never supposed to be the good guys
 

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,237
Reaction score
1,749
As far as empires are concerned, the strongest argument(for the US as an empire) is the US's insistence on managing other countries that we don't ever officially or unofficially think of as colonies, especially in Latin America.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
4,668
It really depends how you define an empire. Size? Colonies? Having an Emperor/Empress or equivalent monarch?
An empire is a political unit made up of several territories and peoples, "usually created by conquest, and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries".[1] The center of the empire (sometimes referred to as the metropole) exercises political control over the peripheries.[2] Within an empire, different populations have different sets of rights and are governed differently.[3]

An empire is an aggregate of many separate states or territories under a supreme ruler or oligarchy.[7] This is in contrast to a federation, which is an extensive state voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples. An empire is a large polity which rules over territories outside of its original borders.

Tom Nairn and Paul James define empires as polities that "extend relations of power across territorial spaces over which they have no prior or given legal sovereignty, and where, in one or more of the domains of economics, politics, and culture, they gain some measure of extensive hegemony over those spaces to extract or accrue value".[10] Rein Taagepera has defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign".[11]
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
7. The Border
How the Mexico-USA border has been historically treated. The thesis is that the border has always been pretty open. I thought the essay was kind of weak.

8. American Socialism
Socialism in American, from Robert Owen to WW2. It points out how it's usually been democratic, and sometimes even been Christian. As to why socialism has never had much traction in the USA, even before the Cold War, the thesis seems to be that other parties co-op the political planks. It's interesting, but feels too short to really cover the topic.
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
9. The Magic of the Marketplace
Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom was the end result of the libertarian National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to create the capitalist bible, equivalent to Das Kapital or Mein Kampf. That's a bold claim.

I'm not even sure how to rate this one. I've never heard of NAM and have no previous knowledge to evaluate the author's claims. However, I've despised libertarianism since the day I learned it existed. And for good reason: when I take the two-axis political test that Libertarians love I score in the opposite quadrant.

10. The New Deal
Some people argue the New Deal was a failure. The author argues it was a modest success and its shortcomings were because it wasn't big enough and ended too quickly. The author outright calls certain past criticisms of the New Deal "lies" and "bullshit", which I think is a bit flippant, even if true. The argument also feels a little too short (a trend with these essays). I'll call it okay, but it could have been better if the author didn't waste several paragraphs of their word count.

There was a rather interesting point about how two books published several decades apart used the same data to draw two different graphs of unemployment rates during the 1930s. The difference was based on whether you counted people employed by government make-work programs towards or against the unemployment rate.
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
11. Confederate Monuments
The essay uses speeches given at the dedication and commemoration of the Confederate monument in Augusta, GA as examples of how Confederate monuments represent defiance and the Lost Cause. It also quotes pre-WW2 black newspapers in Richmond and Chicago for examples of how much African-Americans detested the monuments and Confederate iconography.

My updated tally...
Liked: 3
Okay: 5
Disliked: 2
Skipped: 1
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
12. The Southern Strategy
Definitely one of the highlights of the book. I had heard of the Southern Strategy only in regards to Nixon, particularly his 1972 campaign. This essay shows how the Southern Strategy (the Republican Party courting disaffectioned Southern Democrats as the national Democrat Party drifted left from the New Deal and Civil Rights) began much earlier, particularly in response to Truman.

13. The Good Protest
This essay looks at how MLK and the non-violent protests of the Civil Rights Era have been simplified and sanitized. While it highlights a more extensive protest movement against segregation, it also skirts around the issue of bad protests (i.e. rioting and looting). There are also some questionable stuff, such as citing a group of students that were asked to name a famous American and the two most common answers were MLK and Rosa Parks. Uh, no - that's not going to a real result under normal circumstances. Maybe if you polled elementary students during Black History Month. Thumbs down.

Admittedly, I'm not a receptive audience for this subject. I find people standing on street corners waving signs and shouting slogans, regardless of what cause they're advocating (and most of the time it's just some random politician running for office) to be a massive nuisance. I don't care if it's a good cause. Same thing with roadside political signs (which tend to multiply and become an eyesore, then half the time don't get picked up after the election). Also people calling or texting me to ask if I will support their candidate. My response is always "no, I'm voting for the other candidate because they haven't called me up and harassed me yet." Same thing with soliciting door to door. In other words, no matter what cause or candidate (or business) you're promoting, even if it's one I agree with, I resent you for any interference in or disruption of my life.

How do you spread awareness if you don't call, text, mail, email, knock on doors, hand out flyers, put out signs, or demonstrate? I think ideally I seek out the information on my own time and terms when an election is coming up. Also, we need a way to communicate with our elected officials that wont result in them spamming us in return.

14. White Backlash
The issue here is "white backlash" against Civil Rights. The author argues the concept of "political backlash" only exists with regards to reactionary politics, especially race-based. The essay's implied underlying idea is that reactionary politics don't exist; they're just already existing conservative politics with increased intensity. The author also critiques the media for describing reactionary politics and political backlash by in whites in passive voice and using victim-blaming. While the examples are Reconstruction and Civil Rights, the author misses a perfectly good opportunity to use the 1850s issue of Abolitionists vs Fire Eaters where some modern historians have argued the extremism of the former contributed toward secession.

I eyerolled my way through this one. I disagree with most of the basic premises behind this essay. Literally yesterday there was a political backlash against President Biden because the Chinese balloon wasn't shot down sooner. No, the Civil Rights Act didn't suddenly turn anyone racist, but I'm sure there were plenty of people who were in favor of doing away with schools being all-white or all-black who resented it when their kids were subsequently bused halfway across town instead of attending the nearest school in the name of balancing racial distribution among schools.

Liked: 4
Okay: 5
Disliked: 4
Skipped: 1

Down to the last quarter of the book which I'm trying to finish so I can return it to the library where it's now overdue (but since my library did away with overdue fines I've got no incentive to immediately return it).
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
15. The Great Society
Argues that LBJ's Great Society programs were good ideas for their time and fairly successful. Okay.

16. Police Violence
The very next essay talks about LBJ pumping federal funds and military equipment into local police forces, which is a bit of juxtaposition. Most of the essay is covering an incident in St. Paul, MN in 1968. The "Stem Hall riots" (as it might be called) is apparently obscure enough it doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. The essay then wraps up with an argument against the use of tear gas, which had been deployed at Stem Hall.

Other than pointing out the militarization of the police started over 50 years ago (I thought it was the 1980s), I thought this essay mostly belonged in a different book. It takes a narrow focus on one incident rather than a broad overview of the issue, as it done with basically every other essay in this book.

17. Insurrection
I wasn't sure where this essay would go, and I would not have guessed correctly with a hundred tries. It traces white power terrorism, starting with the 1978 Greensboro Massacre. A group of communists held a "Death to the Klan" rally which the KKK and Neo-Nazis attacked, killing several protestors. The ensuing trial ended in no convictions. This allegedly motivated the white power movement to step up their violence, while the successful busting of the third Klan during the Civil Rights era leads the movement to be more dispersed, including making use of Liberty Net, an early white power bulletin board service (proto-internet).

The author also offers the thesis that white power surges follow wars, citing the first Klan after the Civil War, second Klan after WW1, and third Klan after WW2. This is a bad argument. The second Klan was inspired by "Birth of a Nation" which came out in 1915; the Red Scare contributed to it. The third Klan was a reaction to the Civil Rights movement which was only loosely connected to WW2. Correlation is not causation.

18. Family Values Feminism
Looks at the history of feminism and how it has supported family values, despite criticism from conservatives that feminism is against family values.

The essay has two problems. One, it tries to use the history of women's rights movements back to the 19th century as proof that feminism is pro-family. That's like using the American Civil War to prove Republicans are the party of racial equality and Democrats are the party of racism (also known as the Dinesh D'Souza playbook). Two, it only briefly deals with more radical feminism, and misses the elephant in the room: "feminism" is such a broad term as to be effectively meaningless.

19. Reagan Revolution
Questions the impact of Regan's presidency. How popularity was he really? Did he really push American politics rightward? Was his presidency really as successful as portrayed? As you might imagine, it's generally negative on those answers. It's okay.

20. Voter Fraud
Not even going to bother.

My Final Score?
Liked: 4
Okay: 8
Disliked: 6
Skipped: 2

Verdict: Republicans will be apoplectic. Liberals will probably like. Moderates will find some good stuff they may not be familiar with, but not enough that stands out positively that I would recommend it.
 

Tom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
674
Empire? In effect, yes. We have a military presence in many countries. Pax Americana.
 
Top