1 This article needs a lot of work
2 Longevity table
3 LIst of oldest things
4 Delete "In historical context"
5 American Exceptionalism Exists Today
6 Let's Be Truthful for Once!
7 stay on topic
8 Let's be Truthful for Once!
9 Bush Doctrine

Contents

1 POVness

POVness

On February 18th, Stevertigo made a major series of changes to this page that, in my opinion, were completely POV. I reverted the page to before these edits took place but moved back into the article uselful information (not written by Stevertigo) about the Marxist view of this idea.

My problems with the edited page:

1. The title ethnocentrism limited the concept of American exceptionalism to a racial one when it can be seen as social, cultural, and political as well
2. The use of quotes when describing American exceptionalism ideas throughout the page mocked the idea
3. The tone and content of the page was distorted to create a strong view against the concept

I'd love for you to put back in some of the ideas about race/ethnicity in American exceptionalism - I myself will start that process. However, please respond on the talk page before editing. --Alex S 17:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didnt see this when it happened. I dont think the above criticisms are right or wrong, nor relevant spefic to the article as it is today, but its not typical that we write in such a passive voice that 'Stalinism' for example might seem perfectly acceptible, as long as it was in context. Thus why would an "exceptionalist" view of another kind be defended with an only self-serving interpretation of NPOV? -Stevertigo 06:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

When discussing issues such as this that people often feel very strongly about, it can be easy to lose sight of what the purpose of the article should be. In my view, an article on American exceptionalism should discuss the claims of American exceptionalists and present counter-arguments, but the counter-arguments should challenge the idea that America is exceptional, not the idea that the products of the exceptionalism are desirable. The latter properly belongs in Anti-American sentiment.

For instance, David Monniaux added a bit about how homosexual sex was only recently decriminalized in many U.S. states as a counter-argument to how the American system prevents a "tyranny of the majority". This example, however, actually supports American exceptionalism: It shows that states which held the minority view (on a national scale) that homosexual sex was a social ill were allowed to keep laws that reflected that minority view. An idea behind federalism is that if you don't like the laws in one state, you can go to a state that's more accepting of your opinions. David (and I) happen to think that these laws were prejudicial and were right to have been overturned, but the fact that they still were valid in the 21st century provides ammunition with which to criticize the social values in parts of America, but not with which to debunk American exceptionalism.

It may be a valid criticism of American culture that it has in general a more "backward" view of homosexuality, but it isn't fair to criticize American exceptionalism on the basis of this exogenous factor.

I think the current formulation is quite good. I don't quite buy personally the argument that one may move to another state if one disagrees with the policies of one's states. After all, this was somewhat true of a large part of the world save for the closed "Communist" countries. Yet, having to relocate because of abusive, intolerant decisions from the majority is clearly a hardship. David.Monniaux 17:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And indeed it is the slogan of the intolerant "If you don't like it move to f***in' Russia." etc. Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work

Unless credit is given to scholars like Seymour Martin Lipset for this concept this article is merely a personal essay. I agree with VeryVerily that this article needs a lot of work (see page history as of now). 172 19:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VV removed a lot of text, which was flawed. However, I don't know if it's utterly unsalvageable. Perhaps someone familiar with the relevant scholarly literature can fix it up and restore it. ([1]) I'd do it if I did not have to finish a couple of other articles instead. 172 20:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have restored it, and will clean it up. VeryVerily's hack job was unjustified, and his comments about it being a "personal essay" are no doubt an attack on me; rather than actually dealing with the material itself, (which apparently doesnt fit his narrow concept of what the article should be about) he has chosen the typically obtuse method of deleting material, rather than actually editing it. One would have hoped that VeryVerily might have become an editor by now. What say you VeryVerily? -Stevertigo 06:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I never said it was a "personal essay", and it was not an attack on you. As for your attack on me, it just bores me. Here are a few examples from the text which are problematic:

American exceptionalism, as an ideology, is dissectable into its components of capitalism, personal liberty, and expansionism.

Is it really? How is expansionism part of the ideology of exceptionalism? And what about ethnic nationalism? Democracy? Limited government? This reductionist approach does not look promising.-VV

Did I say it was perfect? What else would you add VV, and why didnt you? This notion of "limited government" is simply a propagandism; if you can write the article, and explain in logical terms how this ideology would have any material effect in the Old World that was equivalent its so-called effect on the US, then there would be something there. As it stands, you cannot extricate "limited government" from the context of "American expansionism," nor even from the alternate interpretations of what the term "limited government" really means. Would you like me to explain that to you too? Try to use less subjective terms to describe this "exceptionally" subjective term. -SV

VV You did not "say it was perfect" per se, but you wrote it in the article as though it were definitive and in compliance with the NPOV policies of this encyclopedia, which it is not. Your "propagandism" talk is neither here nor there, as we are not endorsing exceptionalism (nor seeking to rebut it).

(VV 08:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) To reiterate my point, my quarrel was that "this reductionist approach does not look promising", so asking me what to "add" is of course off.)

See my comment on "off (topic)" below... -SV

Because American existence as an influential and powerful society is due to its vast resources...

Is that all it is? How about solid alliances and past victories? A healthy distance from the theaters of WW2? Its large cultural output? Its progressive ideas of individual liberty? And by resources do you mean natural resources or just wealth? By the way, those sentences are missing verbs. -VV

Im sorry if the basic truths sort of shake your nuanced and glorfied image of what things are and how they came to be. The fact of the matter remains that the US to this day depends on land division and development to sustain its growing (expansionist) economy. Do you disagree? Perhaps you think it was "good old fashioned American ingenuity" that drove the show? "Victories?" Subjectivity! What does "victories" mean here? The ethnic cleansing of Native American populations were considered "victories" at the time; is that what you meat by "victories"? You bring up the role of individual choices in shaping destiny; as much as Im a true believer in the butterfly effect, one cant possibly begin to quantize such nuance, nor can they expect to bundle up all these disordered and separated decisions into a single ideological package, and not be criticised for its POV! Talk about things being temporally distant from each other?-SV

VV I don't think I'm going to bother trying to respond to you anymore, as this is excessive ad hominem. What do you know about my "glorified image" of anything? Anyway, NPOV policies say you are not entitled to use this article as a podium for your personal opinions.

I will not argue with you either. Either you can deal with the citique point by point, or it remains invalid. NPOV does not bound us to keep articles bland, confused, conflicted or even stupid. So, if you want to write a support for the notions expressed in "exceptionalism" please do so; the article can represent both the criticism, and the support. If you support does not match my criticism, well thats no reason to delete the criticism. I agree that criticism/refutation could be separately contained, but you cant possibly be saying that observations and material facts from the last 140 years cant reshape the very way in which the article is presented. I do not intend to mock the notion; I simply intent to show that subjective terms like "personal freedom" are either in quotes, replaced with neutral terms, or put into some context - rather than just being thrown out there, expecting the reader to be Fox-News literate. -Stevertigo 19:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even long before the United States ever came into being, the very discovery of the New World brought a stir to the old, that sparked renaissance of ideas regarding wealth, society, government, liberty, and even God.

Oh, so that's what caused it. How simple! (And relevance?)-VV

If you have a better reason to challenge this other than simplicy, I would like to hear it. Im sure its very long and involved though. While simple has the burden of appearing simplistic, it at least demands that you demonstrate in simple terms, how "simple" is incorrect. "Relevance" is the context, under which the cultural lore of "American ingenuity" "American know how," "the American way" and the "exceptional American" came to be.-SV

VV It is ridiculous to impute all of Europe's evolution of ideas to the discovery of the Americas; you may as well say it was all due to the Fall of Constantinople. And if what actually happened is not relevant, it should not be in the article at all, as it probably shouldn't be.

(BTW, I never wrote that "all of Europe's evolution of ideas" were attributable to the discovery of the Americas.) This is really really basic history; I dont see how anyone who gives it a moments thought can dispute it. We impart events and chains of events to catalytic events and discoveries; it is always subjective. In this case, we are dealing with two competing subjective views; "exceptionalism" versus "expansionism" Knowing what you do about human nature, which do you imagine is the more realistic and practical explanation. "Exceptionalism" which is an outdated attempt to unify a whole bunch of ideas as 'catalyzing events' that themselves fall under a general theory, or "expansionism" which simply explains that people tend to gravitate to where less hardship, more space, more food, and more easy living is. I thought conservatives liked practical explanations.-Stevertigo 19:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After the dissolution of Britain's corporate rulership, the War of Independence, and numerous territorial disputes, treaties, and purchases, (Spain, France, Russia, Mexico, etc.), the basic design for what was to be the United States' territory was outlined.

These are rather temporally disparate events, and I don't see the connection of the East India company, either. Nor do I see what this has to do with exceptionalism.-VV

In giving a general history of the world, one can jump quite a ways; does this mean that the information is not valid, or useful to give perspective? To say that one fails to understand how American history is related to American lore about its history is kind of like saying "I dont know how God has anything to with a discussion of Jesus," or "I fail to see how Superman is relevant to Spider-Man. Only by the subjective rules of the lore itself is the context irrelevant. By any other standard, including NPOV, and encyclopedia material, they are not irrelevant.-SV

VV You were claiming to locate an event in time, but gave a smattering of disparate events. Like most of your comments, everything else you say is off topic.

Im sure you mean off-topic in the same way "travel abroad" and "starvation" are "off-topic" in North Korea, but I can only go on impressions, since your responses are so lacking of material to deal with. -Stevertigo 19:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because the existing powers needed the services of (and preferred the company of) Europeans, preexisting Old World restrictions on social class and status were overlooked.

Is that all it was? Nothing about many of them deliberately fleeing such restrictions, or disbelieving in them on principle? And what does the parenthetical have to do with this? And were they overlooked everywhere, including, say, Virginia? -VV

The advent of Labor unions would be the culmination of the cultural mythos of freedom, with the practical reality that labor can, in a new and limited society, control their destinty to a large degree.

The culmination? Labor controlling their destiny..., I'm speechless.

Are you so blind as to expect that your simplistic and reflexist prejudice toward organized labor be unchallenged? I'm not saying labor unions are Gods gift; rather that people like yourself should perhaps entertain the thought that 6 year old kids would still be working overtime in polluted and abusive sweatshops, were it not for organized labor. Start with that thought, and then consider how things developed up until Enron/Arthur Andersen; being the latest incident where this self-delusional notion of business benevolence was completely and indesputably refuted (except among the comatose or otherwise unaware) -SV

VV What view exactly are you imputing to me anyway? Your psychic abilities clearly outstrip mine, otherwise I'd have any idea what in hell you think these comments have to do with anything. VV 08:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The controlled, incentivised, distribution of the land's ownnership would be the single material driving force behind America's development, overshadowing any moralistic or ideaological claims of influence. Regardless of the ideology, the reality of colonialism dictated that there be a shift in culture values, leaning toward the practical and the simple.

Okay, I can't take anymore. VV 13:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand that your brain hurts, VV. Think of it like riding a bicycle to get into shape; the hills will be a strain the first couple times, and you will say "I cant take it anymore" - just keep it up, and the hills will seem like a piece of cake. But two weeks out of the routine, they say is like having to start all over again. :( -Stevertigo 07:48, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for deigning to extend a hand to a dunce like me. If only more geniuses could be like you! VV 08:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's de-politicize this discussion, shall we? This doesn't need to be a divisive subject. This article just needs more attributions to scholars from Tocqueville to Lipset, that's it. 172 13:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For a start, someone who knows more than most about American exceptionalism should divide the article into many sections and sub-sections. Then we will have manageable paragraphs to work with. Mat334 07:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Longevity table

This table is bound to be debatable. It is impossible to compare ancient Egypt with colonial empires, let alone with a twentieth century state. There are no universal criteria to measure the influence of any given nation. Even the longevity itself is problematic: for most countries only the period they were a 'great power' seems to be counted. Or is it the time they felt 'exceptional?' Both criteria are quite arbitrary and need explanation. Even if the table remains in the article, something more should be said about these problems. - Pastinakel 09:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And someone has laughably confused the Franks (and several other nations) with the French in dating the beginning of the "French Kingdom" to Clovis. - Nunh-huh 22:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. This table is quite nonsensical. David.Monniaux 10:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we remove this table. Many "Empires" are missing, where is China? Where are the Spaniards and the Portugese in the 16th century? Bontenbal 22:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not see the connection between longevity and the topic of the article. I support the deletion of the table. It is not thoroughly done, anyway, and at best at a draft stage. Robbe007, 17 Nov 2004

All these points are valid. A longevity table is fairly useless. However, a table of other empires that have considered themselves to be exceptional is useful. This table could just happen to list approximate dates during which the empire considered itself to be exceptional. Mat334 07:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. It is part of the concept of a nation that it is exceptional in comparison with other nations. Otherwise there would be no purpose in having any at all. Additionally, the table contains false facts, such as the duration of the "French kingdom" (see France). Also, it implies completeness but omits important nations. While interesting by itself, I think that the table does not help understanding the concept of American Exceptionalism. robbe 14:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If what you say is true, that "it is part of the concept of a nation that it is exceptional in comparison with other nations", then this table is useful. The table is relevant to the argument against American exceptionalism. It supports the idea that America is not exceptional by showing that there are other empires that have considered themselves to be exceptional. Because Wikipedia is NPOV we need to include all points of view. This table supports a particular point of view and so we should keep it. Just because has factual inaccuracies or is incomplete does not mean that we should delete it. If that were the case then half of Wikipedia would be deleted. No, instead we need to verify the table and expand it. Therefore keep the table. Mat334 17:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove it. After all, it has been months since my first comment on this issue, and most of those who reacted agreed it should be removed.

Mat334: It is not because I disagree with the point the table tries to make that I want it to be removed; on the contrary, personally I agree with you that the United States are not that exceptional. But still, it's a nonsensical table, unfitting for an encyclopedia, for several reasons.

1 It is impossible to compare the influence of old civilizations like Rome and Egypt with European colonial powers or with modern states. Even if you try to do this, it would be very arbitrary and you would need an explanation far too long to put it in a table like this.

2 The same is true for exceptionalism: you can't measure it, so putting it in a table is misleading.

3 Then there is the point of the longevity. One would say this must be measurable - but as others stated above, it is hard to determine the start and the end for an empire. Is the kingdom of the Franks the same nation that conquered Egypt centuries later? I don't think you can say that, but others will disagree. Pastinakel 12:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LIst of oldest things

Someone (MeltBanana) sensibly changed "has the oldest" to "it claims to have the oldest" (or words to that effect) . I have inserted a few challenges to these claims, and a few references supporting them. However a better wording is needed at the top, if indeed this section is worth keeping. "America claims" really means nothing in this context. Perhaps "Some claim" .... Rich Farmbrough 09:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete "In historical context"

That whole ridiculous section In historical context could be removed from the article, making it much shorter and more readable, without losing anything. VV 09:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In two months there has been virtually no improvement. It reads too much like a essay rather than an encyclopedia article. VeryVerily 13:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can there really be no-one whose knowledge of the concept of American exceptional surpasses that of most? All we really need is for someone to have a shot at dividing everything into manageable sections. Mat334 07:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It really reads like an essay. While it always hurts to delete anything that was written, massively shortening the article would certrainly improve the encyclopedianess of the page. Is there any way of putting all the material on an external page and linking to it? robbe 14:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't put all of the material on an external page and link to it. Instead we should delete all phrases that are explained elsewhere - particularly the historical content. I suggest that someone with knowledge on the subject breaks the page down into sections and sub-sections in order to make it easier to work with. This would also break it down from an essay. Mat334 17:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

American Exceptionalism Exists Today

Let's Be Truthful for Once!

One of the devastating facts about Americans is their denial of the unkind and injust treatment of people that historically EuroAmericans believe inferior. This nation has a black spot on its soul for the genocide and encampment of the surviving Native Americans. The manifest destiny arose long ago because of the ignorance, sinful nature, greed, and lack of conscious of the white man. From generation to generation, the sons gleefully took their inheritances of their fathers, secured by stealing, exploiting, killing, enslaving, and the sweat of people of color. Whites ignored God's commandments they are arrogant and think that their actions are above the sins of other men It is easy for them to justify their actions because of the false belief that they are superior. Indians were human when Columbus stumbled upon the West Indies. Yet, He and his fellowmen were too prejudice and evil to acknowledge it. (The land was occupied by humans whose culture, language, and ethnicity was different. They were human). The barbarians were the Europeans who had no regard for the lives of others, so they massacred, tortured, and stole the resources and land from a gentle people. Man's Christianity was not the Truth, and differed from God's Word or Christian faith. Ironically, the Indians were held as inhuman, but the Church demanded that the Indians convert. Today, the average white man still believes he is superior to people of color. They also still believe that the world evolves around them, rather than accept that they too on earth for a short time along with all other people. They are still ignorant, frightened of men of color, and will still exploit others. What is lacking in their souls is compassion, love, and concern for all humankind. Just live among them as a person of a beautiful golden brown complexion and learn the degree of hate, hostility, and superiority that they possess. They will not accept the faults of their forefathers or apologize for the grave sins of the forefathers. The assets are acceptable but not the liabilities.

stay on topic

lets be concise. Discuss american exceptionalism as an ideal. Next offer the opposing POV which should be that america is NOT , in fact, exceptional by this criteria. History can be offered but not to advance a narrative of america as good or bad. The history should describe what the ideal first was, and what it has evolved to be. Do not lose sight of the topic. Do not lose sight of what the pro and con positions are (re-read first sentences). Keep it in scope.

Let's be Truthful for Once!

While we are being truthful lets talk about the muslim slavers who sold the blacks to the "evil white man." In fact lets look at slavery of africans as a whole. Practiced by muslims throughout their whole existance - even today. In fact the first group to end slavery of africans were the brits. White, Christian, Brits.

Meanwhile the arab muslims continued a practice laid down by their "prophet"

Which is the manmade religion now?

Bush Doctrine

Should Bush Doctrine be added in as having a possible link to American Exceptionalism? Certainly the war for democracy seems to fit.