current event
by Who's the coolest person you know? Think hard. If you're being honest with yourself, you'll have to admit he or she is probably an historian. Don't feel strange. America is with you. The sale of history books rose 6.6% last year for some 14.6 million copies. Entire channels devoted to historical material enrapture U.S. audiences on a daily basis. And if that's not enough, people have taken to paying top dollar to spend time with their favorite historical thinker. A recent fundraiser for the New York Historical Society saw people give a minimum of $5,000 to be seated near Andrew Carnegie biographer David Nasaw. While the experts can't agree as to the cause of the past's reinvigorated allure in American culture, it remains certain that historians are eating up the present. Take that, computer science.
Add a Comment (9)
Email This
Message Author
Isn't it obvious?
This file was left on my MySpace page ... (JPEG file). This just logically follows, considering I was once the sexiest man alive.
You have my vote. I saw you naked. Ha.
You have my vote. I saw you naked. Ha.
I was young ... I needed the money.
Duuude...no shout-out to the person what supplied you with that image? {sniffles}
I didn't know if you wanted Mark to give you hell for having a MySpace page. He's already digitally raped my eyes with his harsh words.
But since you asked for it, props to Lord Dilly for creating the JPEG image! Mark ... fire away.
RSS
America's fascination with history by gheorghe :: NR5 :: on 30 May 2007
While this fascination with the past is a bit ironic in a nation 200+ years young, it is hardly new.
Look around the globe and tell me who else:
- has an obsession with battlefield reenactments, etc
- has raised modern government buildings hinting at the ancient glory of Rome and Greece
I think this infatuation with history arises from the fact that America feels the need to prove itself among the older nations and arcissistically sees herself as the new Roman Empire and maybe (only maybe) secretly hopes it can become a glorious monarchy. The Economist has a good piece on America's fondness for monarchy.
RE: America's fascination with history by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 30 May 2007
Most of said buildings were erected during periods when America was staunchly isolationist, which precludes any notion of being a glorious empire reminiscent of Rome or Greece. Heck, if you listen to the rhetoric against the war in Iraq today, you will notice almost all of it boils down to isolationism--this time from the Democrats (historically it was the Republicans (before Reagan) who were isolationist).
As for the battlefield re-enactments, I think that is partly also due to our lack of vicious losses to next door neighbors and a need for good relations with the neighbors. We can re-enact the Civil War all day long and the people who got whipped take pride in it. Imagine Germany holding a War of 1870 re-enactment, or worse, a WWII re-enactment of their invasion of France. That might hurt business over in France a tad. Notice we and the Canadians don't have any War of 1812 re-enactments (that I am aware of) or Revolutionary War re-enactments commemorating our invasion of Canada. And people call the war in Iraq a fiasco....
If I'm not terribly mistaken, the Brits have some events that come close to re-enactments for certain key naval engagements (like Trafalgar, or the one where they whipped the Spanish Armada), or air engagements (like the Battle of Britain).
Moving away from strictly talking about re-enactments and moving on to other martial displays, the US is hardly alone there. Russia's May Day parade showcased their military hardware to show their people just how badassed the Soviet Union was. The Paris Air Show (and Farnbourough and others) are really a demo for military aircraft sales (including to your own government and people--i.e. the Air Force showing Congress and/or the people who vote for Congressmen why we need new F-22s).
I think there's some merit to your argument about our relative youth and need to prove ourselves, however. I get the feeling that our politicians were always treated as some JV team second stringer by the big European powers until well into the Cold War--and even then. Just look at the way De Gaulle talks to his US counterpart around the time he booted NATO out of Paris. However, I don't think it's empire we seek, but more of Wilsonian idealism. One of the contributing authors to Makers of Modern Strategy: Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age suggests that while everyone else in WWII was struggling to survive and later to maintain their empires after the war, the US and the Soviet Union had an ideological struggle. I think the fondness for monarchy is romanticism, but what people really mean when they talk about American "imperialism" is our penchant for trying to make everyone else into Jeffersonian Democrats because we think they want to be free.
RE: America's fascination with history by gheorghe :: NR5 :: on 30 May 2007
Re: isolationism precludes any notion of glorious empire, I disagree. There is no contradiction here. One can still dream of the glory of Rome at its apogee and still be isolationist - arguably because there was nothing else to be conquered and the development of all things beautiful reached a zenith as well. Ok, so the isolationists were a bit naïve, thinking they could have the glory of Rome without spilling some blood and spending the GDP of several small countries (to include Romania’s) on military prowess, but they still dreamt of setting the example as the ultimate Empire on a Hill.
I would like to add to your points on America’s fondness for reenactments and include the following:
- a penchant for glitzy shows and self-reinforcing marketing-driven activities
- the absence from recent history of devastating military conflicts on America’s soil
- no collective memory of any military-induced poverty/famine
- a (healthy) dose of naiveté and lack of cynicism characteristic of a population who did not experience the disappointment of flirting with and believing en masse in two disastrous ideologies (fascism and communism)
You made a very good point regarding the treatment of United States politicians/representative on the international stage (Wilson’s visit to France after WWI comes to mind). I also do not believe Americans are set on building a military empire.
However, you must agree with me on the following:
- spreading Jeffersonian democratic ideals around the world is highly desirable, commendable, and should be continued; however, America has failed to impress in its recent attempts; for a country that has given this world Hollywood, MTV, and Coca-Cola, there are arguably better marketing methods for ideas;
- while the smugness of certain non-American diplomatic circles in the years of yore is deplorable and has led to disasters on occasions, this does not mean that they are wrong on all occasions;
- the American brand of imperialism is hardly a military one; it can be argued (and it is wildly perceived internationally) that America’s military actions are a poorly disguised attempt at maintaining the more important commercial supremacy.
RE: America's fascination with history by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 31 May 2007
It occured to me last night that other countries do indeed have their versions of Civil War re-enactments. When I was stationed in Germany, for example, there were tons of Renaissance Festival like events with knights in armor and the whole bit. Japan still has tons of Samurai events, Native Americans have Pow-Wows (which are not military re-enactments, but involve some of their martial skills). I guess it comes down to what is "politically correct" in the region and what era has a romantic idealization by the people there. On the first part, knights in armor re-enacting something from the 1400s is pretty harmless because these guys fought other Germans/French/English as much as they did the neighboring country, so it doesn't re-inflame ethnic/national gripes like something like WWI or more recent or national level struggles. In our own case, the Southerners still take pride in the Civil War because they feel their ancestors requitted themselves well. Many Americans can respect that and their bravery even if they lost and even if we are opposed to what they fought for. The Civil War, like the knight example, is also pretty harmless politically because it was "in house", and not against another nation (well, the South was arguably a nation for a time) or ethnic group (if you don't count the slaves).
I don't really see how you can be isolationist and dream of an empire though, unless you count making your nation proper great. You can't very well be isolationist and be deeply involved building colonies in Africa, for example. That's one reason McKinley's foray into the Philippines was so blasted unpopular. I think the isolationists hoped that our oceans would keep all those whacko Europeans away, and that a powerful military would deter them from even thinking of invading. I think where this becomes naive is when the world gradually becomes more integrated, as it did in the 1900s and you think you can just play nice with everyone without taking a side now and again, as in WWI and WWII. Those days are gone forever.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about the other aspects of narcissism, especially our TV, movies and advertising. I also agree that we largely have such a high opinion of the military because it's done its job as an instrument of the people and never turned on them, as has happened elsewhere. We've also been blessed, as you say, that we never let our politics go completely crazy. However, I think part of the reason the Civil War is so celebrated is precisely because of the trauma here at home--but yet we didn't go so crazy as to devastate our own country or fight terribly dirty (although some would argue about Sherman).
I also wholeheartedly agree with you about spreading democracy. If you read my posts here and everywhere else, I continue to advocate for this in the strongest possible sense. This is why I don't want us to bail on Iraq. It's funny you mention our advertising prowess...for some reason we cannot translate that into an effective Information Operations campaign. The American people are blitzed continuously by commercial advertising, yet scream if they consider something propaganda. The whole failure to get people to understand and build support are perplexing and paradoxical.
As for your last point on commercial imperialism, the whole rise of China, the rise of the standard of living for countries that embrace globalization, and the general economic health of the "free world" kind of put that perception to a lie. The whole last portion of Thomas Friedman's Lexus and the Olive Tree talks very eloquently about the limited American "hegemony" and how the rest of the world and the world economy benefits far more than we do. I actually laugh out loud most of the time when someone suggests the war in Iraq was a way for us to get their oil.