Thursday, January 26, 2012

The Decline of the American Empire

Kirkpatrick Sale, the director of the Middlebury Institute, reviews Morris Berman's Why America Failed. Berman's book, argues Sale, is essential to understanding how the DC Empire achieved its present status. It did so by relentlessly pursuing its notion of "progress," an impossible goal perfectly suitable for "a nation of hustlers," a people "relentlessly on the make."

And what does a nation of hustlers do to those who get in their way? The South is a perfect example - as well as a model for future conquests:

In fact that civilization will always take steps to marginalize it, even destroy it if necessary, a fact that Berman illustrates in a chapter on the antebellum South. He shows how the South was "the one example we have of an opponent of [the dominant] ideology that had real political teeth," and blatantly opted for a life premodern (indeed "neofeudal"), agrarian, slow, conservative, and honoring tradition, honor, chivalry, and hospitality more than making a buck or inventing a gadget. This ultimately the increasingly industrial and expansive North could not stand and so began a war to destroy it. "The treatment of the South by the North," Berman says, "was the template for the way the United States would come to treat any nation it regarded as an enemy: not merely a scorched earth policy, but also a ‘scorched soul’ policy’" that it would use in Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba, Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else it could achieve it.

This is why the Civil War remains a hot issue today - the triumphalist mythology that grew out of the Northern victory is the foundation for today's militarism, which is prettied up with talk of "liberation" and "equality."

Thanks to Robert for the heads up!

Bookmark and Share
5 Comments

5 Comments:

At January 26, 2012 9:50 PM , Anonymous Steve Jones said...

The problem to the solution:

On the one hand you've got a society that "blatantly opted for a life premodern (indeed "neofeudal"), agrarian, slow, conservative, and honoring tradition, honor, chivalry, and hospitality;"

versus

one that "relentlessly pursu[ed] its notion of "progress," an impossible goal perfectly suitable for "a nation of hustlers," a people "relentlessly on the make;" and "increasingly industrial and expansive" AND bent on "making a buck or inventing a gadget."

The question is this: IS IT POSSIBLE to establish and SUSTAIN a society/nation that can simultaneously DO BOTH of the above?? It seems obvious that the one dedicated to the "premodern (indeed "neofeudal"), agrarian, slow, conservative, and honoring tradition, honor, chivalry, and hospitality" will indeed be destroyed by the one dedicated to ... "relentlessly pursuing its notion of "progress," etc.

Any ideas?

 
At January 27, 2012 1:35 AM , Blogger MB said...

Steve, please consider how we've been assaulted on all fronts:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/01/guys/

 
At January 27, 2012 8:21 AM , Blogger Harold Thomas said...

Steve:

It probably is not possible to do both.

What the South can do: decide on those of its traditional values it feels will help sustain it in the 21st century (probably not all of them), and build a resistance to those it finds offensive that others try to impose upon it. Turkey and some of the more modern Islamic states might provide a model for this.

 
At January 27, 2012 9:22 AM , Blogger HaroldC said...

Steve, the antebellum South wasn't only pre-modern (agrarian, slow, conservative and honouring tradition, honour, chivalry and hospitality). It also possessed a strong pioneering spirit that opened vast stretches of wilderness. It's class structure was far more fluid than is found in an aristocracy. Ambitious whites and on a rare occasion free blacks could join the elites. Additionally the South has been innovative in developing and implementing new technology. Books have been written on the creativity of the South in the arts, primarily music and literature. It did the same with political and economic theory.

The South can't be described as solely pre-modern or solely modern. It is a harmonisation of both. It took what was best from both and harmonised them and thereby possessed more vitality than either. That was and is the genius of the South. The Old South only looks pre-modern in comparison to the present advanced stage of decayed modern.

 
At January 27, 2012 1:34 PM , Blogger Old Rebel said...

Steve Jones,

There's only one way two such societies can be held in one political unit: one must dominate the other.

Hence 1865.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home