It shapes conversation about domestic policy too. It leads us to think that America’s internal divisions and problems are distinctive—and by implication, that the experience of other countries cannot tell us much about how to handle them. [...]
By itself, having a national mission is not unusual. The European empires of the 19th century were also driven by grand ambitions. The French talked about their mission to civilize the world. The British promoted “British ideals” such as liberty and the rule of law. They even promised eventual self-government for colonies—when London judged that the colonies were ready for it.
The American practice was not entirely different. The country’s leaders declared their mission to civilize the continent. They acquired territory, often by force, and then decided whether people were ready to govern themselves. The empowerment of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, native peoples, and immigrants was delayed because they were considered by the white Anglo-Saxon majority to be “ill-fitted for self-rule.” [...]
The first step is adopting a new point of view. Call it unexceptionalism: an attitude that acknowledges the commonalities, as well as the differences, in the American experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment