On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> Wooo Hooooo! Finally, someone has picked up the glove. ;-)
>
> Thank you, Marvin.
You're welcome. I figured you were itchin' for a bitchin'. <G>
I'll grant that some of my argument *is* semantic and procedural, but
those things are important for me to figure out what you mean by "great."
Based on your reply, it sounds as though you agree that "is great" really
means, "has done a number of great things," and does not confer any
special status on whatever America happens to want to do now, or is doing
now. In which case I'm tempted to say, "Well, my work here is done,"
because if being great has no consequences for America's ongoing behavior,
then you've tacitly admitted that calling America "great" doesn't really
matter (which is really my point).
I'm still not entirely sure that that's what you mean, though. And a lot
of what I'm questioning has less to do with whether or not America has
done great things, and more to do with asking whether such an assertion,
if true, should have any significant meaning outside of stroking American
egos--I suspect not.
As for America being a "net force for good":
It seems to me that to prove such an assertion, we have to prove that the
world is a fundamentally better place now than it would have been without
a United States of America. Since we can't know all the possible
alternative histories, that's very difficult to prove IMO. That's a
fairly semantic argument, but underlying it is the belief to prove the
assertion one must show at a minimum that the lives of the settlers and
their descendents are better or more valuable than the people America
destroyed and displaced, and their descendents, in order to exist at all.
That's something that can only be done by ideological fiat--there's no
calculus for evaluating existing versus possible and lost lives in that
manner. Which is why I think the phrase "net force for good" is one of
those things that sounds good but is really nonsensical at heart.
It seems to me that what you've really wanted to say to the non-Americans
on the list is that their countries have, on the whole, benefitted from
having America around rather than the reverse. Being more specific, I
think that's an easier argument to make--but still, there's no way to know
what the alternatives might have been, so it really boils down to
rhetorical bombast without really saying much.
Finally, I think it's possible to argue that orderly non-homicidal
governments have usually been forces for net good compared to the
alternatives (anarchy or brutal despotism), so arguing it for America is
really an act of setting the bar artificially low...it's just not saying
much.
> The final part is where I really start to disagree with you. To me, you
> seem to be confusing "great" with "greatest." There is a difference. To
> me, greatest implies putting down the achievements of all other countries
> to make a claim of unquestioned superiority. Greater however, simply
> implies a general level of high achievement. I've tried to make the point
> of not once putting down another country's accomplishments for exactly this
> reason.
"Greater," if it applies to America vs. all the other nations in the
world (and I've not seen you give any examples of nations you think are
greater with respect to the US) is no different from arguing "greatest."
You don't have to explicitly put down anybody else's accomplishments in
order to argue that one's own are greater still...which is what I'm
hearing. Am I misunderstanding you?
> Thus, I don't agree at all when you write that a declaration of greatness
> "is nothing ess than to argue that America should be allowed a special
> exemption when
> it comes to evaluating its motives and behavior."
Here's the thing: if it is *important* that we decide that America be
great, then something must follow from that determination. So please fill
in the blank below.
"America is great, therefor _______________."
If America's greatness is to be raised and argued as part of another
argument, then it must be expected to have consequences for that argument.
What conclusions should somebody draw from the assertion that "America is
great?"
If no conclusions are to be drawn, then what does does the statement
*mean* if anything?
I can think of only one thing, and that is this: "America is great,
therefor some of its accomplishments deserve to be emulated by others."
Those accomplishments may include the industry of its citizens, the
prohibition of monarchical institutions, the graciousness in victory
towards vanquished foes. I'm happy to agree that these are all good
things.
But *still* such conclusions have no relevance to what other nations
should think of America's *current* agendas and behaviors, and IIRC you
keep raising the issue of greatness in the context of arguments not about
the past, but about what America is doing now and about what America is
likely to do next. So even if we grant it, what relevance is this
greatness supposed to have for the discussions that prompt you to insist
upon it?
> I find it especially
> strange, because later on, you also write that "true greatness is bestowed
> retroactively on people and things, by people who are in a historical
> position to evaluate the allegedly great people and/or things."
>
> I definitely agree with the latter. I nevertheless considered it
> interesting, however, to look critically on American with that distant
> historian's eye from the present, and try and reach the best conclusions
> that we could about what the distant historians' judgement would be.
Self-evaluation is important, and I don't insist that we focus on the
negatives to the exclusion of the positives. I do insist that we don't
glorify the positives to the exclusion of the negatives, however, because
it is only by addressing the negatives that we can improve.
> Unfortunately, at the end of your post, I am left feeling that you have
> simply argued process rather than substance. You seem to hold that America
> cannot be declared "great", because to do so would be insufferable in the
> present-time.
Not so much insufferable as irrelevant. What I see happening in the
discussions on this list goes something like this:
Non-American: I don't like the way America behaves in the world.
JDG: But America is Great! Surely you agree!
Non-American: America has done some good things, but I don't like the way
America is behaving right now. Moreover, America's self-congratulatory
propaganda is so annoying that I'm tired of hearing about it.
JDG: But surely you must admit that America has been a net force for
good! Surely we deserve some bragging rights!
In this case, a listener is justified in saying, "Ok, America is great.
So what? Don't use past good works as a way of justifying being
overbearing jerks in the here-and-now."
The process argument, then, isn't about whether or not America deserves to
be called great in some respect for past deeds. It's about whether
arguing that point is relevant to the discussions in which it is raised,
which are about America's *current* behavior. If we're not supposed to
draw conclusions about America's current behavior based on its past
greatness, then why do you keep bringing it up?
> You then simply dismiss "net-goodness" analysis as
> uncalcuable. Yet, how can it be uncalcuable given the existence of the
> critical scrutiny we have both advocated.
Lack of significant data. See above.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
