Poor visibility

(via political-cartoons)

Writer Will Wilkinson deconstructs the notion of a cohesive American identity and American-ness that is consistently used by conservatives to brow beat and divide for socio-political gain:

…Americans certainly aren’t “a people” in the sense that the Japanese, the Kurds, or the Jews are a people. There is no American ethnicity; the U.S. is a resolutely multicultural (and multilingual) country. The usual idea is that American identity is creedal, or organized around a distinctively American set of ideas and values.

[…]

Take the belief in individual freedom. Some Americans have understood individual freedom as freedom from all non-defensive physical force and fraud. Some Americans have understood individual freedom as implying roughly equal voice in the democratic process, which straightforwardly requires the redistribution of resources and state regulation of spending on political speech. Some Americans have understood individual freedom as a condition of robust autonomy or self-governance that requires universal government-financed education and a minimum of material resources necessary to ensure that individuals are able actually to exercise their liberty and are not caged-in by necessity. And none of these are the conception of individual liberty that prevailed among the Founders. Anyway, there was heated disagreement among the Founders, too. Some them took the ideal of individual freedom to be consistent with chattel slavery while others correctly found human bondage obviously at odds with liberty. Some defended a robust conception of freedom of conscience while others wished to ban the practice of certain religions for freedom’s sake. And so on.

Not only do appeals to the values of the Founders fail to settle anything, many such appeals are simply ignorant of what this or that Founder actually believed.

[…]

[I]ts [sic] misguided to appeal to the American creed as the basis of the American identity of the American people. There are multiple conceptions of American creed equally consistent with American history. That’s why movements to glorify, elevate, and honor a particular conception of American identity based on a particular conception of the American creed necessarily marginalize equally or more historically plausible conceptions and therefore tend to suggest that citizens who favor those conceptions are less or even un-American. It seems pretty clear to me that this is exactly how the conservative politics of American identity works.

…I guess I don’t think it’s entirely preposterous for Americans to see themselves as a people. But any conception of the American creed sufficiently general to encompass most widespread American conceptions of individual freedom, equality, tolerance and so on is going to be so general that it will do very little to distinguish American identity from, say, Canadian identity. And that’s clearly not what Glenn Beck or the staff of National Review have in mind when they talk about American values, promote a conception of American identity, or encourage Americans to see themselves as a people…

The conservative conception of American identity is so selective and so specific that it tends to suggest to its adherents that many (maybe even most!) Americans aren’t real Americans, or are Americans who betray real American ideals. Birther and Muslim Obama memes crudely reify the logical upshot of the right’s fixation on its favored version of American identity. Most conservatives don’t need to believe that Obama is literally an un-American non-Christian. They’re just content to nod along with Glenn Beck when he implies, or outright asserts, that a guy who adheres to a mundane version of liberal politics slightly to the right of the typical “This American Life” fan is hell-bent on destroying the special Americaness of America.

(source)

Katha Pollitt, in the current (June 28, 2010) issue of The Nation, begins her column recounting how World War II was “the last time Americans accepted the challenge of sacrifice in pursuit of common goals.” War had necessitated rationing, conservation, war bond purchasing, and other efforts that showed an awareness for a bigger, collective “good.” Since then, and now, after (during?) The Great Recession, while millions are still unemployed or under-employed, while the budget hawks in the government nickels and dimes itself out of effective reform that could revitalize our economy and our nation, while consumers self-righteously fume at BP’s environmental destruction, but fail to acknowledge their own fuel thirst that has created the demand for off-shore oil drilling, have Americans become so accustomed to wanting more while contributing less that when a new “national sacrifice” is in order, it is not only seems to be a politically disastrous position, but the existing inequities of our society get replayed and reinforced? 

We must start by looking honestly in the mirror, revisit the ideas of fairness and equality, and refocus on that collective good, as Pollitt fantastically does here:

I would gladly pay higher taxes to prevent layoffs of teachers, cops and firemen; to improve our schools and universities; keep libraries open; expand public transportation; and put unemployed people to work repairing our tattered infrastructure, building public housing, maintaining our parks, staffing childcare centers. And what about that green technology Obama used to talk about—wind power, solar power, high-speed trains? There is no shortage of important work that needs to be done, and the costs of not doing it are very high. Unfortunately, the same leaders who fear asking us to sacrifice by paying higher taxes have no qualms about spending the money we already give them—and borrowing more—to pay for wars, war toys and prisons, while organizing the tax structure around the greed of corporations and the richest sliver of the population. The lavishing of treasure to pay for our militarized, increasingly unequal society is the sacrifice most of us are already making. Is it any wonder that people respond to calls for sacrifice with defensiveness and cynicism?

Adding to the difficulty of selling the public on sacrifice is that the salesman is usually a very rich and successful person who will barely feel the pinch of the policies he proposes. “Americans have become masters of ‘sacrifice avoidance,’ ” intones Eliot Spitzer in his Slate column. This immensely wealthy man, who spent more than $100,000 on prostitutes and thereby cost New York its best shot in a generation at a functioning state government, tells me to read the Gettysburg Address and be inspired to “a greater sense of national purpose”?

Multimillionaires who argue for raising taxes should start by proposing taxes on themselves that would actually lower their standard of living. Until then, they’re not really sharing the sacrifice they want to impose on the rest of us.

Is it a wonder that so many think Americans are the greediest people on earth?

Dave Zirin, from After Donovan’s Goal: Joy or Jingoism? in The Nation

Zirin hits dead on why it has always been difficult for me to earnestly root for the United States in all sorts of international competitions. There often seems to be a prevalent stink of “Fuck yeah, we’re Americans!” superiority that gets articulated in the most vile of terms. 

And it doesn’t help that then there are the sports commentators on television as well that also typify an arrogance or smugness when the United States wins, or worse, when the French loose. (Alexi Lalas and John McEnroe immediately come to mind as such analysts). The ridiculous extrapolations from a xenophobic nationalist narrative doesn’t make me feel proud. Likewise, the droning chants of “U-S-A, U-S-A” never cease to sound like an imperialist war cry—a chant that could have been the soundtrack for Manifest Destiny. 

The Pew Research Center released its findings on its “Global” (a 22-nation survey is more “international” than “global”) Attitudes Survey this past week and some of the of the states are interesting to say the least, and others, downright disturbing.

More than 24,000 people were questioned between April 7 to May 8 on topics such as climate change, Islamic extremism, and attitudes towards nations.

Under “disturbing,” Pew found that 49% of Nigerians have a favorable view of al-Qaeda…and yet, they also have a 81% approval for the United States. The graph below shows the favorability ratings of the 22 nations surveyed:

A follow up poll on America’s favorability rating in Mexico pre- and post Arizona’s immigration bill was very telling. Before the passing of SB1070, 62%. After, 44%.

Beyond our borders, despite massive economic alarm in the European Union, Europeans still support the institution and the euro, but have become more skeptical of economic integration. China continues to see growing prestige as the world’s leading economic power, while sees its position falling. See graph below:

Moreover, the Chinese undoubtedly the most self-satisfied:

Nine-in-ten Chinese are happy with the direction of their country (87%), feel good about the current state of their economy (91%) and are optimistic about China’s economic future (87%). Moreover, about three-in-four Chinese (76%) think the U.S. takes into account Chinese interests when it makes foreign policy.

Another interesting stat that perhaps reshapes our beliefs regarding the United States and global capitalism: Americans are among the least supportive of international trade among the 22 nations surveyed; nevertheless 66% think it is good for their country.

And very interestingly, this:

While most Europeans and Japanese think Americans are too religious, people in the rest of the world – in 18 of 22 countries – think Americans are not religious enough. This includes the U.S., where 64% say their country should be more religious. Criticism of American secularism is particularly strong in the three Arab nations surveyed.

Read more finding here.

“Marines on Beach, Saipan, 1944” by Peter Stackpole

American photographer Peter Stackpole was one of the first staff photographers of LIFE magazine. This image was taken at Saipan in the Mariana Islands during the Pacific campaign during World War II. The invasion of the island turned out to be the most costly in terms of lives lost. As encouraged by Emperor Hirohito, over 10,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide in the last days of the battle to take the offered privileged place in the afterlife. In total, about 22,000 Japanese civilians died as well as at 30,000 Japanese troops. American casualties totaled 2,949 with 10,364 wounded, out of 71,000 who landed.

Re-prints from 1995 by Time Life available for purchase at CLAMPART.

[via:wehadfacesthen]