The co-author of the new book Does God Hate Women? discusses patriarchy, the burka and capitalism Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Why We Can’t See the Trees or the Forest
Let us then turn to “reality itself”: the “idea” of America from its earliest days. Hodgson’s error, it seems, is that he is keeping to “the distortions of the American idea,” “the abuse of reality.” is “just one great, but imperfect, country among others.” Cohen agrees that the evidence supports Hodgson’s judgment, but nonetheless regards as fundamentally mistaken Hodgson’s failure to understand that “America was born as an idea, and so it has to carry that idea forward.” The American idea is revealed in the country’s birth as a “city on a hill,” an “inspirational notion” that resides “deep in the American psyche,” and by “the distinctive spirit of American individualism and enterprise” demonstrated in the Western expansion. In the New York Times, columnist Roger Cohen reviewed a new book, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, by British journalist Geoffrey Hodgson, who concludes that the U.S. The release of the torture memos led others to recognize the problem. We should not be misled by that discrepancy, advised Morgenthau we should not “confound the abuse of reality with reality itself.” Reality is the unachieved “national purpose” revealed by “the evidence of history as our minds reflect it.” What actually happened was merely the “abuse of reality.” has a “transcendent purpose”: establishing peace and freedom at home and indeed everywhere, since “the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide.” But as a scrupulous scholar, he also recognized that the historical record was radically inconsistent with that “transcendent purpose.” In a classic study published in 1964 in the glow of Camelot, Morgenthau developed the standard view that the U.S. One distinguished scholar who undertook the task at hand was Hans Morgenthau, a founder of realist international relations theory. Occasionally the conflict between “what we stand for” and “what we do” has been forthrightly addressed. history, much as in the case of other great powers.Īccordingly, what’s surprising is to see the reactions to the release of those Justice Department memos, even by some of the most eloquent and forthright critics of Bush malfeasance: Paul Krugman, for example, writing that we used to be “a nation of moral ideals” and never before Bush “have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for.” To say the least, that common view reflects a rather slanted version of American history. Keep in mind as well that torture was the least of the many crimes of aggression, terror, subversion, and economic strangulation that have darkened U.S. More importantly, torture has been routinely practiced from the early days of the conquest of the national territory, and continued to be used as the imperial ventures of the “infant empire” - as George Washington called the new republic - extended to the Philippines, Haiti, and elsewhere. The same expectations held for the Bush administration’s “black sites,” or secret prisons, and for extraordinary rendition, and they were fulfilled. Why else send prisoners where they would be beyond the reach of the law - a place, incidentally, that Washington is using in violation of a treaty forced on Cuba at the point of a gun? Security reasons were, of course, alleged, but they remain hard to take seriously. The surprise, less so.įor one thing, even without inquiry, it was reasonable to suppose that Guantanamo was a torture chamber. The shock and indignation are understandable. The torture memos released by the White House elicited shock, indignation, and surprise.
0 kommentar(er)
