It takes mental and moral energy for individuals to face their flaws and failings and bad acts and still conclude that on balance their virtues are still ascendant. The same holds when thinking about your country's history. To America's achievements I would add the aftermath of WW2, when we rehabilitated our enemies and saved Europe from the Soviet Union. Thanks for this essay, Jay.
David, I'd actually originally included the Marshall Plan era while drafting and thought about including the Cold War (which I alluded to only with that Radio Free Europe reference) but then I thought to maintain my sharper focus on the nationhood of people, Americans, instead of their government policies or the abstraction of America. Very relevant thought, though, in appraising the nation's conduct. I appreciate the thoughtful engagement.
Fair point. I think of Senator Vandenberg telling Truman he had to scare Americans about the threat from the USSR in order to get support for the Truman Doctrine to contain the USSR, George Kennan’s policy advice.
Glad you enjoyed it, Pamela. Interesting to learn about your ancestry. You know, I think that mid-century era when those millions of Irish and Germans arrived is really the beginning of the American population's gradual transformation into something multiethnic, new, and different, unique in that sense from other nations.
Jay, I also found the American Indian part of your essay to be quite interesting. In the 70’s when AIM came on the scene, the radio station I listened to in Boston, WBCN was very cutting edge and they played Pacifica' Radio’s Alcatraz broadcasts with John Trudell, and also reported on the AIM movement here in Boston. I took an early interest in AI rights and culture and it stayed with me.
Both my maternal and paternal great grandparents arrived in the U.S around the same time - the 1860’s. My maternal GGP’s came from the Quebec area, originally French - they came to work in the Massachusetts mills. I’ve been researching both sides for a few years and had my DNA done a couple of years ago, hoping to prove some family myths on my mom’s side with no luck.
I have my Ancestry DNA kit sitting on the coffee table right now!
Kevin Brown, Chief of the Pamunkey, shown here, told me that in 1973 he was hitchhiking to Wounded Knee at the very start of the siege. I forget the details of how he said he was waylaid along the way running into some friends, which prevented him from arriving. He was glad for that. BTW, those friends were Indian, and Kevin said in all his years he had never known an American Indian to refer to himself or herself as Native American. It was usually the Tribal name or the generic Indian.
I found the Ancestry DNA thing to be very eye opening and fun. My daughter and I both did it.
Your friend was lucky to have not been there when Wounded Knee happened. I know that tribal people use their tribe names mostly or Indian. We’re the ones using the other labels, perhaps out of concern of confusing people from India with our Indians not to mention the fact that there are a lot of American’s who don’t know the tribal names. Thankfully these things are being taught now to younger children in school. My daughter teaches 5th grade humanities here in Mass, and she’s working on bringing a Nez Perce story teller to her classroom to speak in a couple of weeks.
My nephew -- my sister's son -- did the Ancestry DNA testing a number of years ago. He turned out to be, to no surprise, 98.5% Ashkenazi Jew. I have no reason to think my results will be different.
We have a friend who very humorously handles the potential "Indian" confusion by placing a fingertip to her forehead, then raising it up vertically beside her head and stating "Dot, not feather."
Since Denmark is a founding member of NATO, will Article 5 kick in? (The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.) I refer to the forceful annexation of Greenland. Regarding attacking a fellow NATO member, it looks like we need a new article. I also wonder if a state's governor can order its National Guard to protect its citizens from deportation by the US Army. Where is sanity in this Bizarro world?
These are all interesting questions that would rarely arise in anyone's mind outside of a Trump presidency. Just a taste of how his ascendance has upturned the national and international order.
Re The Open Mind series: Sadly but not surprising, those comments reflected just how closed and incurious their minds were to a different reading or perspective, the aim of which is far from ascribing blame or guilt. Only when a person can attest to the truth and facts of our common, shared history is it possible to locate that moral and mental energy David references and then rise to a higher ground where concern for others and finding creative and lasting solutions to problems take precedence.
Some years ago, the National Museum of the American Indian (in D.C.) mounted an exhibition of the many treaties the U.S. made with Native Americans and then in various ways demonstrated how every one of those treaties was broken. That was not an exhibition of "alternative facts" but a stark and deeply honest portrayal of the American Experience of which too many have no knowledge and too few can imagine or will accept.
"Only when a person can attest to the truth and facts of our common, shared history is it possible to locate that moral and mental energy David references and then rise to a higher ground where concern for others and finding creative and lasting solutions to problems take precedence."
That's exactly it, isn't it? But this resistance is akin to the psychological resistance put up when a person fears the goal is to fault them, to make them culpable.
The history of the treaties is as shameful as any in the American story. When people point out, as some of those commenters did, what they think the damning history and behavior of the Native Tribes -- whatever forms of dishonesty they cite, a history of inter-Tribal conflict -- I think, do you know European history at all?
The Atlantic article about turning the natiinal parks over to indians was offensive. Simply because we know powerful blocks of park neighbors would shoot. But a month after, I was certain that Indians could be given preferential terms for county and city land adjacent to the parks and treaty rights in the parks. Since that Atlantic 2 years ago even the damned Atlantic has learned that the old fortran program of offering pie in the sky solutions smells fishily funny.
The commenters might have had ideas about what new concession we could give out of the wealth of the land. The current ones almost speak for themselves. Minor successes. Notably including that Indians by en large have a sense of humor about Now you will be from here, this bounded reservation etcetera, and they adopt it. It is funny because it is like saying you grew out of the soil of a suburban backyard, but they will say it.
I need to give this a much fuller read because it deserves that. Will be back later today to catch up properly--been distracted by possible fire evacuation as we are a mile from the Brentwood fire. So I've not forgotten you and the depth of your essays.
I know you have been, Mary. We have another friend, in the Encino Hills, who is still evacuated, so between the two of you, we've been keeping eyes particularly on the fire in that area. So glad, the advance seems stopped and containment growing.
Perhaps the most direct way to agree with you about the paradoxes you so eloquently lay out here is this: “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” —Mark Twain
I read this piece when you first posted it, and I thought it one of the most seasoned essays you've shared with us here - but I also knew I wanted to revisit it properly, when not strapped for time as I have been these past few weeks.
Jay, you do such an excellent job setting up schism as lying at the core of the US dream of itself, and then your use of shifting demographics stats to guide narrative pacing at a subsequent juncture further undermines the lie that a more complex tapestry was ever really attained, even when it might have been. "Synthesis" just doesn't seem to be in the US nature, even if its original sins and binary thinking are not unique, as you note.
It's a culture of adversarial dualism, maybe. Does the US citizen have any way to define themself morally, ideologically, without falling into conflict with the other side of its political spectrum? Is that possibly part of the problem? Is there a way to dream "America" outside of schisms that relentlessly reassert themselves, no matter how much one strives for more pluralistic growth?
Thank you so much for this rich and thoughtful read. I carried it with me all week, and was richer in my own thinking for having it in the back of my mind through so much.
"The unique history and motley constituency of the American people, shaped in ideal formulations of independence, fortitude, ambition, pious decency, and energy, tended further to support the self-regard. Between the frontier spirit and the refining process of immigration, both standing on the founding’s ideal philosophy, Americans were, they told themselves, the crème de la crème." Britain's history is very different, but we too had a period when we combined immense power with huge self-regard. When you're left with just the vestiges of the latter, as in the case of the UK, it's an uncomfortable place to be.
Thank you, Jeffrey. Yes, the English certainly have their own history of very different but just as obnoxious self-regard. Regarding the essay, I certainly agree with its spectacle thesis. America is the modern national master of mindless spectacle. And I agree with its conclusion, that we're past the utility of mere derision..We need a well conceived and executed campaign to defeat Trumpist spectale. But I don't actually care for it as an essay. I think it too diffuse in its discussion and presentation of ideas, not sharply and compellingly focused. I didn’t actually enjoy reading it.
What over inflated nonsense is this?
I don't know, Matthew. You'd have to tell me what over inflated nonsense you think it is.
It takes mental and moral energy for individuals to face their flaws and failings and bad acts and still conclude that on balance their virtues are still ascendant. The same holds when thinking about your country's history. To America's achievements I would add the aftermath of WW2, when we rehabilitated our enemies and saved Europe from the Soviet Union. Thanks for this essay, Jay.
David, I'd actually originally included the Marshall Plan era while drafting and thought about including the Cold War (which I alluded to only with that Radio Free Europe reference) but then I thought to maintain my sharper focus on the nationhood of people, Americans, instead of their government policies or the abstraction of America. Very relevant thought, though, in appraising the nation's conduct. I appreciate the thoughtful engagement.
Fair point. I think of Senator Vandenberg telling Truman he had to scare Americans about the threat from the USSR in order to get support for the Truman Doctrine to contain the USSR, George Kennan’s policy advice.
Carrots and sticks with popular sentiment, skillfully employed by a benevolent or malevolent hand. That's the way it works, unfortunately.
This was a fascinating read on history. Thank you Jay. My paternal great grandparents came from Ireland to Boston in 1860.
Glad you enjoyed it, Pamela. Interesting to learn about your ancestry. You know, I think that mid-century era when those millions of Irish and Germans arrived is really the beginning of the American population's gradual transformation into something multiethnic, new, and different, unique in that sense from other nations.
Jay, I also found the American Indian part of your essay to be quite interesting. In the 70’s when AIM came on the scene, the radio station I listened to in Boston, WBCN was very cutting edge and they played Pacifica' Radio’s Alcatraz broadcasts with John Trudell, and also reported on the AIM movement here in Boston. I took an early interest in AI rights and culture and it stayed with me.
Both my maternal and paternal great grandparents arrived in the U.S around the same time - the 1860’s. My maternal GGP’s came from the Quebec area, originally French - they came to work in the Massachusetts mills. I’ve been researching both sides for a few years and had my DNA done a couple of years ago, hoping to prove some family myths on my mom’s side with no luck.
I have my Ancestry DNA kit sitting on the coffee table right now!
Kevin Brown, Chief of the Pamunkey, shown here, told me that in 1973 he was hitchhiking to Wounded Knee at the very start of the siege. I forget the details of how he said he was waylaid along the way running into some friends, which prevented him from arriving. He was glad for that. BTW, those friends were Indian, and Kevin said in all his years he had never known an American Indian to refer to himself or herself as Native American. It was usually the Tribal name or the generic Indian.
I found the Ancestry DNA thing to be very eye opening and fun. My daughter and I both did it.
Your friend was lucky to have not been there when Wounded Knee happened. I know that tribal people use their tribe names mostly or Indian. We’re the ones using the other labels, perhaps out of concern of confusing people from India with our Indians not to mention the fact that there are a lot of American’s who don’t know the tribal names. Thankfully these things are being taught now to younger children in school. My daughter teaches 5th grade humanities here in Mass, and she’s working on bringing a Nez Perce story teller to her classroom to speak in a couple of weeks.
My nephew -- my sister's son -- did the Ancestry DNA testing a number of years ago. He turned out to be, to no surprise, 98.5% Ashkenazi Jew. I have no reason to think my results will be different.
We have a friend who very humorously handles the potential "Indian" confusion by placing a fingertip to her forehead, then raising it up vertically beside her head and stating "Dot, not feather."
Since Denmark is a founding member of NATO, will Article 5 kick in? (The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.) I refer to the forceful annexation of Greenland. Regarding attacking a fellow NATO member, it looks like we need a new article. I also wonder if a state's governor can order its National Guard to protect its citizens from deportation by the US Army. Where is sanity in this Bizarro world?
These are all interesting questions that would rarely arise in anyone's mind outside of a Trump presidency. Just a taste of how his ascendance has upturned the national and international order.
Re The Open Mind series: Sadly but not surprising, those comments reflected just how closed and incurious their minds were to a different reading or perspective, the aim of which is far from ascribing blame or guilt. Only when a person can attest to the truth and facts of our common, shared history is it possible to locate that moral and mental energy David references and then rise to a higher ground where concern for others and finding creative and lasting solutions to problems take precedence.
Some years ago, the National Museum of the American Indian (in D.C.) mounted an exhibition of the many treaties the U.S. made with Native Americans and then in various ways demonstrated how every one of those treaties was broken. That was not an exhibition of "alternative facts" but a stark and deeply honest portrayal of the American Experience of which too many have no knowledge and too few can imagine or will accept.
We tell ourselves stories. Indeed.
"Only when a person can attest to the truth and facts of our common, shared history is it possible to locate that moral and mental energy David references and then rise to a higher ground where concern for others and finding creative and lasting solutions to problems take precedence."
That's exactly it, isn't it? But this resistance is akin to the psychological resistance put up when a person fears the goal is to fault them, to make them culpable.
The history of the treaties is as shameful as any in the American story. When people point out, as some of those commenters did, what they think the damning history and behavior of the Native Tribes -- whatever forms of dishonesty they cite, a history of inter-Tribal conflict -- I think, do you know European history at all?
The Atlantic article about turning the natiinal parks over to indians was offensive. Simply because we know powerful blocks of park neighbors would shoot. But a month after, I was certain that Indians could be given preferential terms for county and city land adjacent to the parks and treaty rights in the parks. Since that Atlantic 2 years ago even the damned Atlantic has learned that the old fortran program of offering pie in the sky solutions smells fishily funny.
The commenters might have had ideas about what new concession we could give out of the wealth of the land. The current ones almost speak for themselves. Minor successes. Notably including that Indians by en large have a sense of humor about Now you will be from here, this bounded reservation etcetera, and they adopt it. It is funny because it is like saying you grew out of the soil of a suburban backyard, but they will say it.
I don't know what Atlantic article you're referring to. The commenter were concerned that anything might be asked of them, ever.
I need to give this a much fuller read because it deserves that. Will be back later today to catch up properly--been distracted by possible fire evacuation as we are a mile from the Brentwood fire. So I've not forgotten you and the depth of your essays.
I know you have been, Mary. We have another friend, in the Encino Hills, who is still evacuated, so between the two of you, we've been keeping eyes particularly on the fire in that area. So glad, the advance seems stopped and containment growing.
Perhaps the most direct way to agree with you about the paradoxes you so eloquently lay out here is this: “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” —Mark Twain
If I wrote the essay over again, Mary, I might make Twain the epigraph. Ain't that the truth.
I read this piece when you first posted it, and I thought it one of the most seasoned essays you've shared with us here - but I also knew I wanted to revisit it properly, when not strapped for time as I have been these past few weeks.
Jay, you do such an excellent job setting up schism as lying at the core of the US dream of itself, and then your use of shifting demographics stats to guide narrative pacing at a subsequent juncture further undermines the lie that a more complex tapestry was ever really attained, even when it might have been. "Synthesis" just doesn't seem to be in the US nature, even if its original sins and binary thinking are not unique, as you note.
It's a culture of adversarial dualism, maybe. Does the US citizen have any way to define themself morally, ideologically, without falling into conflict with the other side of its political spectrum? Is that possibly part of the problem? Is there a way to dream "America" outside of schisms that relentlessly reassert themselves, no matter how much one strives for more pluralistic growth?
Thank you so much for this rich and thoughtful read. I carried it with me all week, and was richer in my own thinking for having it in the back of my mind through so much.
Thank you, Jay. I learnt a lot from this.
"The unique history and motley constituency of the American people, shaped in ideal formulations of independence, fortitude, ambition, pious decency, and energy, tended further to support the self-regard. Between the frontier spirit and the refining process of immigration, both standing on the founding’s ideal philosophy, Americans were, they told themselves, the crème de la crème." Britain's history is very different, but we too had a period when we combined immense power with huge self-regard. When you're left with just the vestiges of the latter, as in the case of the UK, it's an uncomfortable place to be.
I wonder if you've read this? https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n01/t.j.-clark/a-brief-guide-to-trump-and-the-spectacle It would be interesting to get your take on it.
Thank you, Jeffrey. Yes, the English certainly have their own history of very different but just as obnoxious self-regard. Regarding the essay, I certainly agree with its spectacle thesis. America is the modern national master of mindless spectacle. And I agree with its conclusion, that we're past the utility of mere derision..We need a well conceived and executed campaign to defeat Trumpist spectale. But I don't actually care for it as an essay. I think it too diffuse in its discussion and presentation of ideas, not sharply and compellingly focused. I didn’t actually enjoy reading it.