
Unlearning the myth of American innocence - kawera
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/08/unlearning-the-myth-of-american-innocence
======
randcraw
America is indeed an empire. Apparently the author was oblivious to this, and
her epiphany that empire creates a reality distortion field for all those
within it is really not that much of a revelation, except to her. Perpetuating
unthinking patriotism is fundamental to empiric survival. Only as long as the
populace believes in their inherent superiority (AKA exceptionalism) do their
eyes remain blissfully closed to the consequences of their righteousness on
others.

The rest of the article (book?) is about the author's slow growing awareness
that non-Americans are warped by these distortions of reality too, in ways
that are just as self-delusional and self-destructive. Yes, power does
corrupt. Absolutely.

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how anyone over 30 could find this piece
compelling. It's founded in a childish self-centered view of the world, a
self-indulgent bubble that finally popped for the author, but not until age
30?

Has this become typical? Even an Ivy League American student can be so
insulated that they're not aware that people elsewhere in the world see the
world so differently? That their disenfranchisement from power, both locally
and globally leaves them bitter and mistrustful of all forms of authority? Who
doesn't know this? Jeez. We just elected TRUMP, dammit. Who isn't aware that
even the average _American_ feels disempowered by the routine abuse of
authority by self-perpetuating elites?

Likewise, I was equally taken aback at the general public's response to
"Hillbilly Elegy" as epiphany. Back in the 1970's I lived on the edge of
Appalachia, which left me well aware of the subsistence lifestyle in rural
America that the book revealed as something new (to most?). Are such wide
dynamic ranges of experience in and outside the USA really so invisible to
most of us?

If so, that's freaking inexcusable. We live in an era where the ubiquity of
the Net can make you aware of virtually every aspect of human experience on
Earth in less than a heartbeat. Just open your eyes.

~~~
autokad
i found it strange that she was sort of selling a story of the provincial
country girl when she grew up in jersey.

~~~
beisner
New Jersey is a very, very diverse place. Things may not be as spaced out as
they are in the Midwest, but culturally the New Jersey countryside is very
very different from the sections on the Shore, on the Northeast Corridor, and
in the affluent North.

~~~
Balgair
> New Jersey

> ...

> affluent North.

Good one!

~~~
beisner
Meant the part of North Jersey that is affluent, not that all of North Jersey
is affluent.

------
gobugat
The piece is stating the obvious, and the reactions in this thread --
predictably -- prove the author's point. Expatriation, even temporary, has so
many benefits. I'd be curious to correlate the postures of HN commentators
with their provenance and life experience.

~~~
DarkKomunalec
The piece is also full of guilt for American foreign policy that's mainly
decided by special interests, but then gets blamed on ordinary Americans.

Aren't they lucky - first they get their democracy subverted by multinational
corporations, then they get to feel guilty about what those same corporations
do.

Source: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-
poli...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-
politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-
and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B)

~~~
coldtea
> _The piece is also full of guilt for American foreign policy that 's mainly
> decided by special interests, but then gets blamed on ordinary Americans._

Well, ordinary citizens also get to benefit from a strong position of their
country in the world arena.

Plus, in a democracy ordinary citizens are also to blame for their
government's decisions. They can always vote something else, protest, revolt
etc. People all around the world have done it for their governments (and of
course Americans at different times).

Lastly, some (if not most) of those actions also have strong popular support
(whether for misinformation, misplaced patriotism, or just because of strong
propaganda).

~~~
candiodari
> Plus, in a democracy ordinary citizens are also to blame for their
> government's decisions. They can always vote something else, protest, revolt
> etc. People all around the world have done it for their governments (and of
> course Americans at different times).

Those BASTARD Mosul Kurds ! I KNEW they did something to deserve getting mass-
murdered and raped.

Thanks for clarifying that not revolting means you are guilty of whatever
government happens to rule the piece of land you're currently occupying does.
And of course, what it did in the past.

I must say, I was not clear on that. Well, I still am not clear on that.

~~~
coldtea
> _Those BASTARD Mosul Kurds ! I KNEW they did something to deserve getting
> mass-murdered and raped._

First of all, I wrote "in a democracy". For all the sneer, you missed that
part.

Second, those "Mosul Kurds" did very much rebel, and for a long long time. For
all the sneer, your example doesn't match their history.

Third, even if they hadn't that would be irrelevant, as they were a minority
in that country. It's the duty of the general population that first and
foremost should not let its government do injustice, not of an oppressed
minority, that not only doesn't control the government but also has the
majority against it. For all the sneer, you missed that obvious counter-
argument as well.

> _Thanks for clarifying that not revolting means you are guilty of whatever
> government happens to rule the piece of land you 're currently occupying
> does._

You're welcome. People in a democracy are not just random bodies occupying
random pieces of land and getting on with our lives whatever happens. They are
citizens, they vote, they participate in the public discussion, the voice
their opinions, etc. Silence is complicity.

~~~
candiodari
> First of all, I wrote "in a democracy". For all the sneer, you missed that
> part.

Iraq was a democracy at the time. In fact this is one of the big grievances
that is blamed for the creation and advance of ISIS.

Oops.

> Second, those "Mosul Kurds" did very much rebel

No they didn't. Not when it mattered. Here is the sequence of events, in the
hope that it can show you just how wrong you are :

Iraq was a sectarian country. That America made it a democracy is part of the
causal chain that gave us Daesh/isis. Here's what happened:

1) Saddam (gets put into power as an ally of Hitler and more generally as a
product of the nationalistic ideologies sweeping the world)

2) Saddam is a Sunni muslim, and rules in sectarian fashion. This means that
anybody in government jobs is a Sunni muslim too (sunni muslims, in case you
don't know, are the ones behind most terrorism, the ones behind daesh/isis,
and the largest group of muslims (80% or so). They are completely intolerant
of other islamic groups, and of course of any other faiths and atheists).

3) Sunnis, however are a minority in Iraq. Shi'a, the "Iranian/Persian"
"branch" of islam, are the majority. Other minorities include Kurds,
Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians, and expats.

4) America fights two wars against Iraq. Second time, they install a
democracy.

5) The democracy puts the majority Shi'a in power. They put Shi'as in power
who, together with Americans, fire pretty much every Sunni in government
service, which were pretty much the only remaining jobs.

6) After that, of course, those Shi'as found that over time they had been
relocated to areas of the country that were unimportant economically, where
Sunni's lived.

7) Sunnis react to this state of affairs by attacking everyone and everything.
As a result of this, the Christian community of Iraq has essentially been
murdered out of existence.

8) Shi'as remove Sunnis from those economic areas, by simply destroying their
houses, villages, etc. and shooting everyone. The Shi'a police force, with
help from Americans, learn to deal with the Sunni terror attacks over time and
those become ineffective.

9) The Sunni band together and form Daesh/isis, and take territory. Confronted
with an organized force, the Shi'a soldiers simply abandon their posts and let
them take large parts of the country.

So, firstly, not only were the Kurds living in a democracy, but a democracy
that was doing very unacceptable things (by our moral code, not by theirs). A
racist democracy, installed and supported by the US and Iran (yes, really).

In the areas that were conquered, everyone saw it coming.

But of course outside of that we simply cannot accept that, given the chance,
in the middle east (and elsewhere I might add) muslims simply immediately
oppress and even massacre anyone even slightly different from them. When they
get control of a government, they replace the agents on the ground, the police
and the army, so that, firstly, they can do whatever they want, and second the
government itself helps with the ethnic cleansing. And of course, that happens
whether that government is a dictatorship or a democracy, because that fact
simply has nothing to do with the problem. People might even suggest that
similar things are in the very early stages of happening in cities like Paris,
in a few districts.

------
throw2016
Exceptionalism always carries with it the danger of supremacism and once that
gets you as individual, group or country there is a constant desire to find
the 'logic and evidence' to support the position post-facto.

Identity becomes deeply entwined with protecting the purity of the
'exceptional group' with an unhealthy reductive interest in judging others and
clearly demarcating the 'unexceptional'. This is a very negative space.

The problem with sweeping articles like this is it requires intense engagement
with history, reason and reflection to escape the generalization and find a
truth you can be comfortable with.

No one can define you, you can always choose what you want to be. On a wider
level people have always been led and as long as exceptionalism remains a low
key 'motivator' it works but its a dangerous game as the lines can blur pretty
quickly.

------
losteverything
My take. She is a journalist. They have to write. She writes. We read.

The old saying is "everybody has one novel in them." updated verson: everyone
has a blog post in them.

Her words are ok. Not inspiring whatsoever. Not dramatic. Not new.

I take it for what it is. Let her get better at her job.

------
reptation
It very much glosses over Turkey's own history of (Greek, Armenian) genocide
and the very real differences in religious and other liberties between Turkey
and the U.S.

~~~
vkazanov
She's not talking about Turkey as something superior to the US. Quite the
opposite!

She notices _similarities_ between Turkish nationalism and American patriotic
world view, and that includes being a very aggressive state.

~~~
jessaustin
Yes, we must see ourselves in others. My epiphany was when I realized how
similar the political decision-making process in Pakistan is to that in USA.
Short answer: in both places, the military-industrial complex dictates the
"reality" it's acceptable to perceive, and all decisions flow from that.

------
dalbasal
My take on the topics raised - US innocence, hostility towards the US,
patriotism, nationalism... my take is that these are changes in prevailing
opinions and notions. The cumulative of subjective opinions. I'm not American,
btw.

There are a few big reasons for what the author is observing and commenting
on, that get too little attention IMO.

One is the end of the cold war, and the wars preceding it. The cold war was
cold, but the psychology was regular war psychology. Fear, demonisation,
rallying around your side... Relative evaluation of conduct and goals, rather
than idealistic evaluation.

In the corld-war-world, the US represented democracy, personal liberty and its
associated human rights, and (very importantly) culturally icons. US and
western police forces behaved well relative to Soviet police forces. US Movies
& Music were better. Press was more honest. The comparison was not made
relative to an idealised concept of democracy or human rights (or music). It
was made relative to the Soviet Union associated states. It was also mostly
made in Eastern Europe, where the divide was arbitrary, non-national and
highly visible.

That dichotomy world is gone. These days, I think people evaluate these things
in a more abstract way, relative to abstract idealizations.

A second effect is US politics' global viewership. This is a product of
globalized media, the dramatic merits of US political theater, the genuine
impacts of big US decisions and other reasons.

This is huge. I live in Ireland. The _majority_ of people are more
knowledgeable, vested and opinionated about US politics than local politics.
They have a strong opinion on US health policies, but not Irish ones. This is
a recipe for insanity. US politicians are pandering to US opinions, not Danish
or Georgian or Irish opinions. Of course they feel unrepresented. When one
side loses a heated election, large numbers always feel alienated and angry at
the country. It passes, a normal part of democracy. Many Danes (and everyone)
were involved enough emotionally to get the same feeling but being non-
americans aren't as affected by the normalizing effects that bring everything
together in the end.

When Europeans express a frustrated criticism of US politics, they are doing
it as insiders. They are criticising it the same way they would criticize a
local party coming to power, one which they don't like. Imagine how angry
Americans would get at the Danish or Mexican parliament if they were following
it like this.

A third issue is the "someone must be driving" fallacy. In this sense being
angry at the US is like the constant anger at one's own government. There is
so much wrong with everything and it has to be someone's fault.

The US has been having a bad run in foreign policy. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Syria, even N. Korea, ... The US is (rightly or wrongly) held responsible as
the guy in charge. Politics rarely rewards successes. The failures are just
more visible.

Who do you get angry at for the Syrian civil war? Who's to blame? The UN?

~~~
cantremember12
Thank you for this comment. I'm an American but have lived abroad for most of
the last 13 years in various countries and articles like this drive me nuts.
Yes, the US has made a lot of terrible mistakes in our foreign policy, but we
have also paid for and ensured (basically unilaterally) the security of free
trade (securing shipping routes, underwriting NATO, projecting force against
anyone that tried to disrupt international trade). We did this readily during
the Cold War because markets were our strongest weapon against the Soviet
Union. Now that there is no equal existential threat, we no longer have much
motivation for ensuring global security.

When I read shallow reflections like this article, I think, here's a person
that judges the wartime decisions of the past in the peace of the present, and
submits to the vapid criticism every government levels against the world's
boogieman.

~~~
dalbasal
A appreciate it.

But, I don't really think the writer of this article is all that bad. He's
obviously writing from a personal perspective. Basically narrating his
"disilusionment," for lack of a better term. It's actually a fairly poor term.
We always start from simpler idea, less knowledge and grow from there.

The reality is that there is no such things as patriotism. It's a made up
concept to describe how we feel about our country (another made up concept).
There is no True narrative of Turkey's political saga.

These are all opinions and narratives, subjective by nature. Facts play a
roles, but they are intermingles with a lot of stuff that isn't factual in
nature. That doesn't make it shallow.

The problem is that we're all playing a losing game. You can't read an article
like this, and just fish for stuff that supports are weakens your own position
in some meta-trial conducted in the minds of the whole world.

~~~
tome
> He's obviously writing from a personal perspective.

He?

------
DanielBMarkham
_For all their patriotism, Americans rarely think about how their national
identities relate to their personal ones. This indifference is particular to
the psychology of white Americans and has a history unique to the US._

This is the thesis of the piece. The rest is an extended critique of
Americans.

I have difficultly buying into the thesis, so the rest of it reads like a very
long-winded opinion piece with the standard throwaway charges about how the
U.S. is horribly bad.

This seems to be a perennial topic and folks all over the world eat it up.
It's nice to see it done in such a talented way. Just not my thing.

~~~
boyce
It's certainly going to be an easy sell to the bulk of the Guardian's
readership.

Can't see them publishing the equivalent article about the prejudices of, say,
the north London elite.

~~~
Nursie
Actually I think they probably would. The Guardian's schtick is quite full of
"Oh god we're all so awful, we must repent". Although you may be right - it's
more likely to be aimed at everyone they consider less enlightened than them.

All that said, there certainly is something in what she writes, particularly
about the naivety of people growing up with little world perspective like
that.

~~~
marcus_holmes
Her assertion that world geography is not taught to US high school students
shocked me.

~~~
coldtea
How about not taught properly?

How many US high school students can pinpoint even fairly known countries on
the map?

(Come to Austria, meet the Kangaroos)

~~~
taneq
I see this accusation leveled at the U.S. all the time, usually in highly
contrived scenarios (random people picked off the street, asked to locate
landmarks in another country, then the worst/funniest performers made into a
gag reel). It shits me because it's so hypocritical. I'm not from the U.S. and
I have no idea where your capital city is (let alone state capitals and
whatnot) and I really don't give a crap, so why should you care about mine?
It's just "hurr, durr, murkins are stupid" so that equally stupid people can
feel superior about something.

~~~
coldtea
> _(random people picked off the street, asked to locate landmarks in another
> country, then the worst /funniest performers made into a gag reel)._

Only it's not like that. You can ask random people yourself to verify, or you
can trust one of several surveys and/or studies in the subject. E.g:

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html)

> _It shits me because it 's so hypocritical. I'm not from the U.S. and I have
> no idea where your capital city is (let alone state capitals and whatnot)
> and I really don't give a crap, so why should you care about mine?_

Well, it's exactly the "don't know, don't care" attitude we're arguing against
here.

A basic knowledge of geography is not only essential in the modern, globalized
world, but also indicative of a lack of knowledge in other areas, including
history and current world affairs. And that, for a country that's intervening
left and right, and whose citizens are trusted to vote, rally for, or oppose
parties that will perform such international interventions, diplomatic
actions, etc, a lack of such knowledge is shameful.

Not as if lack of knowledge was ever some kind of badge of honor.

~~~
taneq
Memorizing names and locations of cities and landmarks in a far-off country
that you have no plan to visit, when those names and locations are instantly
publicly available and there is an infinite number of more useful things to
learn instead, is a waste of time.

Don't conflate being able to recite geographic info with knowledge. It's not
knowledge, it's just... data.

~~~
coldtea
> _Memorizing names and locations of cities and landmarks in a far-off country
> that you have no plan to visit, when those names and locations are instantly
> publicly available and there is an infinite number of more useful things to
> learn instead, is a waste of time_

Which would be relevant if anybody had asked them to do that. Nobody suggested
people should "memorize names and locations of cities and landmarks in a far-
off country that you have no plan to visit".

I (and others, including classical education) suggested a working knowledge of
work geography -- what the continents are, what the major countries are, major
cities. They should also know a thing or two about their history. You know,
the history of human civilization, even if they have no plans to contribute to
it.

And the "instantly public availability" of information doesn't make one
smarter. Only the information already accessed (and even more so, evaluated
and assessed) does. Things you know are there in your mind, available for your
thoughts and comprehension, can help you follow a discussion, can be used to
make judgements etc. Things one can merely look up do not inform your
worldview -- they are absent from it.

> _Don 't conflate being able to recite geographic info with knowledge. It's
> not knowledge, it's just... data._

Knowledge itself is just data plus understanding them in context. Without data
there's no knowledge. Don't conflate potential access to data with actually
knowing things.

~~~
coldtea
a working knowledge of work geography -> a working knowledge of world
geography

------
cafard
Quite a few years ago, I saw a trailer for a movie about the 1950s quiz-show
scandal. It included a clip of the producer, Robert Redford, saying something
about "the end of American innocence." At that point, I started wondering
about the man's smarts.

------
RodericDay
One thing I find very interesting is how entertainment media, probably as a
result of needing to pander to whatever the mainstream sensibility of the
moment is, really works as a barometer for how people in America see
themselves.

Back when America could do no wrong, America was Rocky, or one of those
glistening 80s heros. Maybe a bit flawed, but generally a family man vs.
evildoers, a plucky little upstart.

Then America was Bruce Willis in Die Hard, rough around the edges and divorced
but still a good guy, trying to do the right thing. Then America was Keifer
Sutherland in 24... somebody's gotta do the torturing! For a good cause,
though.

The more and more dirt comes out, the more public sensibilities turn to stuff
like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones and House of Cards, reassuring watchers
that nobody's good, that if you try to do the right thing the world will crush
you, that all that matters is being top-dog. Sucks, but "that's the way the
world really is".

It's super interesting. You'd think the character development in those shows
is indicting, but it really is mostly immunizing and pride-preserving.

~~~
eregorn
I'd like to throw in that I wonder if this article is a bit late, and in a way
Americans are already coming out of exceptionalism.

I was noticing I cared more about international politics than I previously
did, and I saw a lot of other Americans putting more skin in the game than in
the past (Although the only way I know this is from the last days of the
French Election, where a bunch of tone-deaf English/bad French memes were
being pushed to save Le Pen). It is European focused but hey its a start I
guess.

More importantly though, is the lack of trust in institutions. When the
article started talking about conspiracy theories and the deep state I had be
do a double take for a second on whether she was still talking about Turkey.

------
evolve2k
Summary of Americans responses here: "Oh no, this doesn't apply to me"

------
traverseda
I'm surprised at how easily another "original sin" doctrine has taken root. I
suppose if it works, it works. Still, I'd have expected people to build up
some kind of immunity.

------
johnrichardson
Jordan Peterson has a great take on the attitude this author (and many others
like her) have about America, and the West in general:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf2nqmQIfxc&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf2nqmQIfxc&t=1s)

The modern Left is dripping with hatred for the West - quite ironic given that
we live in one the most free, prosperous societies ever created in human
history. They are driven almost entirely by resentment, and lack even a shred
of gratitude for the vast wealth, comfort and freedom they've been born into.

~~~
DarkKomunalec
> lack a shred of gratitude for the vast wealth, comfort and freedom they've
> been born into.

That's 'privilege', and is something to feel guilty about. It's not something
to be grateful to your ancestors for providing, but something you get unfairly
by 'accident of birth'. Only when it comes to guilt is your connection to your
ancestors and ethnicity more than an accident.

Edit: I did not think a 'sarcasm' tag necessary.

~~~
johnrichardson
Yet another example of what I was referring to.

I happen to be quite grateful for the sacrifices my ancestors (and the human
race more broadly) made in building civilization, so that I don't have to live
in a Hobbesian world where death by age 30 is the norm.

~~~
icebraining
_Yet another example of what I was referring to._

Pretty sure DarkKomunalec is being sarcastic, but good job reinforcing your
biases.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=white%20by:DarkKomunalec&sort=...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=white%20by:DarkKomunalec&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

