Talk:American exceptionalism/Archive1

More idealistic
The article currently says: "To this day, the US still tends to be more idealistic in its justifications for interventions."

This rather raises the question: More idealistic then what? Many nations and empires have explained their interventions on the basis that they were carrying them out with the best of motives. To bring civilisation to the natives. To convert them to the one true God. He help some hypothetical oppressed minority. The reality behind these interventions may or may not have been as advertised. Is the US really different?--BobIt's windy! 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it means more idealistic that other nations today. Obviously this claim is completely unsubstantiated, but I think that's what it's getting at. 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More idealistic than the Canadians, the Dutch or the Iranians for example? --BobIt's windy! 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Category
Should this go in Category:Pseudohistory? I would say yes but is this anything other RWers might feel strongly the other way about? Secret Squirrel (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say "yeah". 04:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism and American exceptionalism
This is just kind of bouncing ideas off the wall here, but the whole religion of Mormonism seems to be a worship American exceptionalism. The bible and all the events of it occur in the Middle East, however Mormonism places parallel events in America and the future of Christanity is linked with the future of America. 04:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A Good Interpretation of American Exceptionalism
I think American exceptionalism can have another, more positive, interpretation if we look at the definition if "American." Take China for instance. If you're not Chinese, but you move to China, live there for a long time, and absorb its culture, you're still not really considered Chinese. Same with Japan, Nicaragua, Egypt, France, Brazil, Pakistan, or pretty much any other country out there. Unless you're ethnically Chinese, Japanese, Nicaraguan, etc, you're not really considered of that country's demonym (it's a real word - look it up). But if you become an American citizen, you're American. Sure you could be called Chinese-American, Japanese-American, etc, but you're American. Take Bernard Lagat for example. He was totally Kenyan by ethnicity, was born there, and competed internationally for them in track but when he became a US citizen, he was considered as American as Alan Webb or Matt Tegenkamp or any other "naturally" American distance runner and there's no second thoughts about his American records. I think if you look at American exceptionalism this way then it becomes a positive thing instead of an arrogant thing (of course this doesn't mean it's the only interpretation). So basically that's my take on American exceptionalism and if anyone else likes it then maybe we can put it into the article.

Also, I'm not sure the article's quite right when it says America's supposed to be a "city on a hill." I'm pretty sure that it was the goal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony for being an example for the rest of the world, not the whole of America (which didn't exist yet). It might have been a Mormon thing as well. SoCal 212I can't find my talk page 00:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)