There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
You can thank wikipedia for the commas, in your copious spare time. ħuman 06:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
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. Tetronian you're clueless 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say "yeah". ħuman 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. - π 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 212 I can't find my talk page 00:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Theoretical realism and liberal realities
The article states "Many scholars, like Samuel Huntington, in his book Clash of Civilizations, or the entire realist school of international relations, have a hard time understanding this part of US foreign policy." My understanding is not that the modern IR realists don't understand liberal (idealistic) foreign policy, but rather that they recommend against it. --Peter Talk 02:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Material from BoN I reverted
There might be the faint trace of a point to the text that was added by a BoN, and which I reverted:
- Paradoxically, another form of American exceptionalism exists among certain figures in the left, particularly hardline critics. This version does its best to highlight the aforementioned "bad" history even at the expense of ignoring or hand-waving other aspects of America's past. It also goes through considerable lengths in making the United States as an imperialist menace/threat to world peace and generally a symbol of all that's wrong with the world. In other words...it's pretty much the mirror image of the neoconservative version, not too dissimilar to Howard Zinn's line of thought.
This article is good but it should be rewritten. We should point out that not only the term "American exceptionalism" but also the idea that America is unique was coined by communists and discuss the propensity of right-wingers to hijack leftist terminology (such as the term libertarian that went from being an ideology that supports a stateless direct democracy to describe a form of corporatocratic minarchism). Also put that text about slavery, genocide and warmongering and the belief that American is immune to fascism should be in a seperate section within the article. Tuxer (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
These people are such LOSERS that being born in America is their first, last and only achievement.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 06:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)