<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with Nationalism and USA</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/Nationalism+USA</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'Nationalism' and 'USA' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:55:11 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:55:11 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Extreme Makeover: America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/39606/Extreme%2DMakeover%2DAmerica%2DRight%2Dor%2DWrong%2DAn%2DAnatomy%2Dof%2DAmerican%2DNationalism</link>
		<description> &lt;small&gt;For more than two centuries, nationalism in all its various forms&#8212;from the high-minded chauvinism of the British Empire to the virulent poison of Nazism&#8212;has been a familiar, and often negative, phenomenon. Emerging first in Europe, which it nearly destroyed and which has now apparently learned to control it, extreme nationalism still erupts from time to time in other parts of the world. The word &quot;nationalism&quot; never quite seemed to fit the United States, where continental vastness and enormous power have hitherto been tempered by an often-expressed distaste for empire and by the notion of world leadership by example. In the first years of the twenty-first century, however, in a dramatic departure from traditional policy, the spirit of unilateralism and militant nationalism began to dominate Washington&apos;s policies and attitudes toward the outside world.&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17750&quot; title=&quot;After setting out what he calls the &apos;American Creed,&apos; Lieven examines the historical roots of its antithesis, a &apos;wounded and vengeful nationalism.&apos; Irrational hatred, even fear, of the outside world, combined with an obsessive belief in the treachery of American &apos;elites&apos; and intellectuals, is not only destructive at home; it also demeans the traditional idea of a people with a special mission to help other nations that has been variously described over the years by many leaders and thinkers.&quot;&gt;Extreme Makeover &lt;/a&gt;- Brian Urquhart reviews &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/books/default.aspx?id=28071&amp;subject=biography&quot; title=&quot;In this thoughtful critique of America&#8217;s role in the world, Lieven contends that U.S. foreign policy since 9/11 has been shaped by the special character of its national identity, which embraces two contradictory features. The first, a civic nationalism or &#8216;creed&#8217; which espouses liberty and democracy, sometimes irrespective of the needs and desires of others. The other feature, Jacksonian nationalism, has its roots in the defensive White America, and is fed by a profound pessimism and a sense of personal, social, religious, and sectional defeat. Lieven examines how these two opposing impulses have played out in recent US policy and suggests that, in the Middle East in particular, the uneasy combination of policies has gravely undermined U.S. credibility and complicated the war against terrorism. &quot;&gt;America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism&lt;/a&gt;. And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/print.php?sid=991&amp;POSTNUKESID=a5ae9f791c8b01030a97447c4e701738&quot; title=&quot;With its wealth of economic and military power, what is it exactly that such a great nation should do in the face of this unorthodox challenge to its own security? One bleak answer, evident from the recent presidential election, is for America to flirt with a more authoritarian style of government, a government more belligerent toward those who disagree with it, including its own citizens, and a government intent on projecting its raw military power in the most unsubtle of forms. This certainly has an appeal to the more macho of Americans; but to those more thoughtful about the calibrated and wise use of American power, it is deeply disturbing. &quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; is Gerald Rellick&apos;s take on the book. From Asia Source, a long and informative interview with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/lieven.cfm&quot; title=&quot;This results in an incredible situation: on the one hand - and I am speaking here particularly of the neo-cons - the Bush administration wants to democratize the Muslim world, while on the other, neo-conservatives do not even bother to hide their contempt for Muslims and Arabs. Sometimes you hear, and even read, phrases like, &apos;The only language that Arabs understand is force,&apos; &apos;Let them hate us so long as they fear us&apos; and so on. This is utterly contradictory: people saying they want to democratize the Arab world but displaying utter contempt for Arab public opinion. Of course this is not just a moral failing, or a propaganda failing. It also leads to practical disasters, like the extraordinary belief that you could pretend at least to be introducing democracy, and on the other hand, you could somehow impose Ahmed Chalabi on Iraqis as a pro-American strongman, and that somehow the local population would line up to salute you and happily accept this.&quot;&gt;Anatol Lievin&lt;/a&gt;. From the Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley&apos;s Conversations with History, &lt;a href=&quot;http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/Lieven/lieven-con0.html&quot; title=&quot;..American support for Israel within the borders of 1967 is entirely legitimate, and I share it to the full. The problem is, of course, that since 1967, as you say, Israel has gone out not just to occupy militarily the Palestinian territories. Once again that was entirely justifiable, the military occupation, until Israel was recognized by a legitimate Palestinian authority, and also by neighboring Arab states. No problem with the military occupation, in my view. The problem is the planting of settlements, which is categorically forbidden under the Geneva Convention, and which also, quite obviously, made the search for a peace settlement infinitely more difficult. For example, two years ago, Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia put forward a peace plan which was accepted by the great majority of Arab states, which explicitly offered fully to recognize Israel, to sign a peace treaty with Israel within the borders of 1967. Now, this is what Israel in the past always said was all that it wanted. But because of the settlements, because Israel has now expanded far beyond the borders of 1967, it wasn&apos;t possible for Israel or the United States even to discuss this peace offer. It was immediately swept off the table. I cannot understand how honest people in America can, on the one hand, talk about the need to reach out to the Arab world and the Muslim world, the need to respect ordinary&quot;&gt;A Conversation With Anatol Lieven&lt;/a&gt;. Also by Anatol Lieven, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.peaceredding.org/LRB%20%20Anatol%20Lieven%20%20A%20Trap%20of%20Their%20Own%20Making.htm&quot; title=&quot;Even if despair and apathy turn out to be the responses of the Arab majority, there will also be a minority which is too proud, too radical, too fanatical or too embittered - take your pick - for such a course. They are the natural recruits for terrorism, and it seems likely that their numbers will only have been increased by the latest American victory. We must fear both the strengthening of Islamist terrorism and the reappearance of secular nationalist terrorism, not only among Palestinians but among Arabs in general. The danger is not so much that the Bush Administration will consciously adopt the whole Neo-Con imperialist programme as that the Neo-Cons and their allies will contribute to tendencies stemming inexorably from the US occupation of Iraq and that the result will be a vicious circle of terrorism and war. If this proves to be the case, then the damage inflicted over time by the US on the Muslim world and by Muslims on the US and its allies is likely to be horrendous. We have already shown that we can destroy Muslim states. Even the most ferocious terrorist attacks will not do that to Western states; but if continued over decades, they stand a good chance of destroying democracy in America and any state associated with it.&quot;&gt;A Trap Of Their Own Making&lt;/a&gt;.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.39606</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:55:11 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>bookreview</category>
		<category>brianurquhart</category>
		<category>foreignpolicy</category>
		<category>geraldrellick</category>
		<category>nationalism</category>
		<category>power</category>
		<category>USA</category>
		<dc:creator>y2karl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Flag Waving Ain&apos;t All Bad</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/26812/Flag%2DWaving%2DAint%2DAll%2DBad</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://americanhistory.si.edu/1942/introduction.html"&gt;July 1942: United We Stand&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Seven months after the United States entered World War II, magazines nationwide featured the American flag on their covers. Adopting the slogan United We Stand, some five hundred publications waved the stars and stripes to promote national unity, rally support for the war, and celebrate Independence Day.&quot;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.26812</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:18:21 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>america</category>
		<category>flag</category>
		<category>independenceday</category>
		<category>nationalism</category>
		<category>patriotism</category>
		<category>usa</category>
		<category>wwii</category>
		<dc:creator>owillis</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Anti-anti-americanism</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/26714/Antiantiamericanism</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/29/IN290713.DTL#sections"&gt;Why Must America Always Be The Greatest?&lt;/a&gt; Be it the greatest sham or show on earth; why is American nationalism and anti-nationalism always couched in hyperbole and a &lt;strong&gt;childish&lt;/strong&gt; hankering for being number 1, whether in the best or the worst senses?  &lt;strong&gt;Dinesh d&apos;Souza&lt;/strong&gt;&apos;s interesting list of ten reasons to celebrate why he&apos;s an &lt;strong&gt;anti-anti-American&lt;/strong&gt;, although passionate and partly persuasive, ultimately fails to convince because of this constant desire to make the U.S. great by artificially and ignorantly belittling or aggrandizing supposed competitors.  Perhaps it&apos;s &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; all a game and America is quite simply &lt;strong&gt;an OK country&lt;/strong&gt;, with a standard battery of qualities and shortcomings, like most OK countries in the world?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.26714</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:02:44 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>nationalism</category>
		<category>patriotism</category>
		<category>USA</category>
		<dc:creator>MiguelCardoso</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/16014/</link>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C51429%2C00.html&quot;&gt;Literary lynching&lt;/a&gt;, the practice of attacking authors who make statements against the U.S. government or engage in dissent, gets a comprehensive overview with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.holtuncensored.com/literary_lynching/index.html&quot;&gt;a book in progress&lt;/a&gt;.  As 72 year old author Dorothy Bryant &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.holtuncensored.com/literary_lynching/intro.html&quot;&gt;puts it&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;More than ever, we need free exchange of facts and opinions. I hope that looking back on a few cases that have had time to cool off will help us to understand the psychology of literary lynching, and to resist it &#8212; not only in others but in ourselves.&quot;  But in today&apos;s world, is there any distinction between a thoughtful response and a downright ugly rejoinder anymore?  (via &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mobylives.com&quot;&gt;Moby Lives&lt;/a&gt;)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.16014</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:21:32 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>author</category>
		<category>book</category>
		<category>books</category>
		<category>criticism</category>
		<category>dissent</category>
		<category>DorothyBryant</category>
		<category>LiteraryLyncing</category>
		<category>nationalism</category>
		<category>patriotism</category>
		<category>USA</category>
		<category>Wired</category>
		<dc:creator>ed</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


