Apr 11, 2008
Jeremy Kuzmarov: Review of Walter Hixson's The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy (Yale University Press, 2008)
[Jeremy Kuzmarov is Visiting Assistant Professor, Bucknell University.]
The recent controversy surrounding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Barrack Obama’s attempt to assert the nation’s “fundamental goodness,” underscores one of the major points of Walter Hixson’s new study, The Myth of American Diplomacy. The point is that there exists a powerful hegemonic discourse in American culture that is in denial about the nation’s imperial heritage and its long-standing mistreatment of ethnic minorities and “Third World” peoples, which carries on through the present.
Similar to Richard Drinnon’s book, Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire-Building, Hixson argues that, contrary to glorified myths about America’s founding, the most formative development in the nation’s history was the original sin – the genocide of the native Indian population. This was rooted in the colonialist ideology of the original settlers and their sense of social and religious superiority based, in part on the advancement of western technology and other perceived virtues of western civilization. Hixson maintains that American national identity was reaffirmed over time by the stigmatization of non-white peoples and the glorification of imperial conquest and war. A deep rooted perception of national greatness was institutionalized, further, as a result of an artificial economic prosperity built upon the backs of immigrant workers and slaves, as well as the exploitation of Third World resources and labor. This perception ultimately yielded dangerous ramifications in lending moral justifications to U.S. political and economic expansion, and the waging of wars of aggression that yielded near-genocidal effects.
For those subjected to the mindless indoctrination of nationalist propaganda, Hixson recounts in vivid details the dark sides of American history: the brutal treatment of African-American slaves, the vicious nature of the warfare over Mexico, the genocidal character of the U.S. pacification of the Philippines, and coercive expansion of American economic interests in Latin America. He also points to the moral hypocrisy of many American leaders, including the most celebrated of national “heroes,” who preached a democratic rhetoric while often possessing racist inclinations. This included Abraham Lincoln, who, according to Hixson, was most committed to national unification in waging the civil war, and proposed to relocate the freed slaves back to Africa upon their liberation.
Hixson generally points to the prevalence of a deep-rooted counter-subversive tradition in American history, in which those who challenged the status quo were conveniently branded in the dominant discourse as “un-American” or “Communists” and subject to social stigmatization and/or repression. According to Hixson, the post World War II and early Cold War represented the peak of American hegemonic nationalism, as epitomized by widespread support for McCarthyism and the waging of quasi-genocidal wars over Korea and Vietnam, for which nationalist scholars are still straining to find justifications. The Cold War, according to Hixson, was emblematically cast as a pseudo-religious crusade to “contain” the “evil empire” and its expansionist thrusts in the developing world – even though much scholarship has shown Soviet military capabilities to have been grossly exaggerated. The 1960s social movements, according to Hixson, challenged the nation’s hegemonic discourse and rejected its imperialist heritage, though were supplanted by the conservative ascendancy in the 1980s and 1990s. This facilitated the revival of some of the more reactionary tendencies in American culture. The jingoistic climate following the 9/11 attacks, according to Hixson resembled Pearl Harbor in the clamoring for revenge against an “uncivilized enemy,” and led to massive overkill in the waging of imperial wars in the Middle-East that have devastated the countries in which they have been fought.
Hixson’s analysis is not entirely original. It echoes much New Left scholarship and books like Howard Zinn’s Peoples History of the United States. Hixson’s analysis of the post-war period borrows heavily from Tom Englehardt’s eloquently written book, The End of Victory Culture: Post-War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation, which shows how popular cultural representations of World War II helped to produce the overweening sense of national invincibility and self-righteousness that fuelled the waging of the Cold War. Englehardt further frames the conservative movement as a reactionary effort to reclaim a past mythic innocence and glory put into question by revelations of mass atrocities in Vietnam. Hixson is nevertheless original in emphasizing the importance of cultural constructions in shaping perceptions of national identity, and their manipulation by political elites. He might have elaborated in more detail how print and cultural media helped to “manufacture consent” as Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman put it in an important 1989 study, and construct cultural identity through subtle stereotyping and racisms. He might have also assessed how this has shifted over time and also assessed the degree of state influence over the media, which has likely grown in response to the relative openness of the Vietnam era.
As an overarching narrative, Hixson’s book suffers from some of the same defects as that of Howard Zinn in it being overly formulaic and lacking in nuance. He might have addressed, for instance, why some immigrant groups were better able to integrate into the mainstream in American society and prosper over time, while others remained marginalized. He might have also addressed in more detail the failure of oppositional groups to articulate a coherent ideology or program capable of swaying the mainstream or challenging the dominant status quo. With regards to foreign affairs, while synthesizing much scholarship on the domestic roots of foreign imperialism and pointing to its often devastating consequences, he might have broadened his analysis to include discussion of oppositional currents within government circles, as well as the ability of international leaders to manipulate U.S. aid to their advantage. He could have further emphasized the complicity of other major foreign powers in the international crimes, for which he implicates U.S. leaders, thus pointing to the similarity in their practice of diplomacy and disregard for human rights in the “Third World.”
These points aside, Hixson has written a stimulating book that provides an important counterweight to the ream of nationalist histories and apologetics that adorn the bookshelves of our major libraries and bookstores. He gives important attention to the racist and imperialist currents in American society and culture that have caused misery and anguish for countless millions, and have not fully been vanquished. Contrary to Obama’s denials and those of his more reactionary adversaries, the U.S. is indeed a nation marred by contradictions and hypocrisies, which may well spell its demise if not recognized and confronted. For that reason alone, Hixson’s book is a must read.
The recent controversy surrounding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Barrack Obama’s attempt to assert the nation’s “fundamental goodness,” underscores one of the major points of Walter Hixson’s new study, The Myth of American Diplomacy. The point is that there exists a powerful hegemonic discourse in American culture that is in denial about the nation’s imperial heritage and its long-standing mistreatment of ethnic minorities and “Third World” peoples, which carries on through the present.
Similar to Richard Drinnon’s book, Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire-Building, Hixson argues that, contrary to glorified myths about America’s founding, the most formative development in the nation’s history was the original sin – the genocide of the native Indian population. This was rooted in the colonialist ideology of the original settlers and their sense of social and religious superiority based, in part on the advancement of western technology and other perceived virtues of western civilization. Hixson maintains that American national identity was reaffirmed over time by the stigmatization of non-white peoples and the glorification of imperial conquest and war. A deep rooted perception of national greatness was institutionalized, further, as a result of an artificial economic prosperity built upon the backs of immigrant workers and slaves, as well as the exploitation of Third World resources and labor. This perception ultimately yielded dangerous ramifications in lending moral justifications to U.S. political and economic expansion, and the waging of wars of aggression that yielded near-genocidal effects.
For those subjected to the mindless indoctrination of nationalist propaganda, Hixson recounts in vivid details the dark sides of American history: the brutal treatment of African-American slaves, the vicious nature of the warfare over Mexico, the genocidal character of the U.S. pacification of the Philippines, and coercive expansion of American economic interests in Latin America. He also points to the moral hypocrisy of many American leaders, including the most celebrated of national “heroes,” who preached a democratic rhetoric while often possessing racist inclinations. This included Abraham Lincoln, who, according to Hixson, was most committed to national unification in waging the civil war, and proposed to relocate the freed slaves back to Africa upon their liberation.
Hixson generally points to the prevalence of a deep-rooted counter-subversive tradition in American history, in which those who challenged the status quo were conveniently branded in the dominant discourse as “un-American” or “Communists” and subject to social stigmatization and/or repression. According to Hixson, the post World War II and early Cold War represented the peak of American hegemonic nationalism, as epitomized by widespread support for McCarthyism and the waging of quasi-genocidal wars over Korea and Vietnam, for which nationalist scholars are still straining to find justifications. The Cold War, according to Hixson, was emblematically cast as a pseudo-religious crusade to “contain” the “evil empire” and its expansionist thrusts in the developing world – even though much scholarship has shown Soviet military capabilities to have been grossly exaggerated. The 1960s social movements, according to Hixson, challenged the nation’s hegemonic discourse and rejected its imperialist heritage, though were supplanted by the conservative ascendancy in the 1980s and 1990s. This facilitated the revival of some of the more reactionary tendencies in American culture. The jingoistic climate following the 9/11 attacks, according to Hixson resembled Pearl Harbor in the clamoring for revenge against an “uncivilized enemy,” and led to massive overkill in the waging of imperial wars in the Middle-East that have devastated the countries in which they have been fought.
Hixson’s analysis is not entirely original. It echoes much New Left scholarship and books like Howard Zinn’s Peoples History of the United States. Hixson’s analysis of the post-war period borrows heavily from Tom Englehardt’s eloquently written book, The End of Victory Culture: Post-War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation, which shows how popular cultural representations of World War II helped to produce the overweening sense of national invincibility and self-righteousness that fuelled the waging of the Cold War. Englehardt further frames the conservative movement as a reactionary effort to reclaim a past mythic innocence and glory put into question by revelations of mass atrocities in Vietnam. Hixson is nevertheless original in emphasizing the importance of cultural constructions in shaping perceptions of national identity, and their manipulation by political elites. He might have elaborated in more detail how print and cultural media helped to “manufacture consent” as Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman put it in an important 1989 study, and construct cultural identity through subtle stereotyping and racisms. He might have also assessed how this has shifted over time and also assessed the degree of state influence over the media, which has likely grown in response to the relative openness of the Vietnam era.
As an overarching narrative, Hixson’s book suffers from some of the same defects as that of Howard Zinn in it being overly formulaic and lacking in nuance. He might have addressed, for instance, why some immigrant groups were better able to integrate into the mainstream in American society and prosper over time, while others remained marginalized. He might have also addressed in more detail the failure of oppositional groups to articulate a coherent ideology or program capable of swaying the mainstream or challenging the dominant status quo. With regards to foreign affairs, while synthesizing much scholarship on the domestic roots of foreign imperialism and pointing to its often devastating consequences, he might have broadened his analysis to include discussion of oppositional currents within government circles, as well as the ability of international leaders to manipulate U.S. aid to their advantage. He could have further emphasized the complicity of other major foreign powers in the international crimes, for which he implicates U.S. leaders, thus pointing to the similarity in their practice of diplomacy and disregard for human rights in the “Third World.”
These points aside, Hixson has written a stimulating book that provides an important counterweight to the ream of nationalist histories and apologetics that adorn the bookshelves of our major libraries and bookstores. He gives important attention to the racist and imperialist currents in American society and culture that have caused misery and anguish for countless millions, and have not fully been vanquished. Contrary to Obama’s denials and those of his more reactionary adversaries, the U.S. is indeed a nation marred by contradictions and hypocrisies, which may well spell its demise if not recognized and confronted. For that reason alone, Hixson’s book is a must read.