|
CounterPunch
September
24, 2002
Random Thoughts on "Anti-Americanism"
and on Good, Evil, Duck Eggs and Warm Beer in China
by GARY LEUPP
If someone asked Karl Marx (you know, the author
of the Communist Manifesto and Capital), circa 1860, what
was the most advanced and progressive nation on the globe, he
would have stated unhesitatingly: the United States of America.
It boasted, in his view, the world's most democratic political
and social institutions. In 1864, Marx authored, on behalf of
the Central Council of the International Workingmen's Association,
headquartered in London, a letter to U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.
He congratulated Lincoln, whom he much admired, on his recent
electoral triumph and the victory of the North over the South
in the Civil War. "From the commencement of the titanic
American strife," he wrote, "the workingmen of Europe
felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the
destiny of their class." (Thus did the father of scientific
socialism, the harbinger of International Communism, tout the
Stars n' Stripes.) Of course Marx had inveighed against the infamies
of slavery, "Indian removal," and the conditions of
the still-incipient industrial working class in the U.S., but
within his sweeping vision of world history, America's virtues
and potential outweighed its flaws and crimes.
Most Americans today would nod in agreement
with the brilliant German Jew who in his day and afterwards influenced
so many about so many things. That is to say, looking at nineteenth
century U.S. history, they would find greater good than evil
even in a society built in large part on the extermination or
forced relocation of the indigenous American population, on the
trafficking in human beings from Africa, and on the annexation
of Mexican territory which in today's world would be viewed as
criminal (rather analogous to Iraq's attempted annexation of
Kuwait). I won't (at least for the time being) quarrel with this
positive assessment of that segment of our past. At a time when
neo-Manichaean, simplistic, downright stupid views of the world
are gaining prevalence, I think it's important to look at history
realistically, dispassionately (the way Marx did), and recognize
that there have always been complicated interactions between
good and evil in human society. (I would suggest we apply the
same approach to the examination of the socialist experiments
of the twentieth century. On the one hand, impressive growth
statistics in the USSR and People's Republic of China before
the restoration of capitalism. Undeniable achievements in education
and health care that have left their positive legacy. [Just
compare statistics on literacy, infant morality and longevity
in former Soviet republics Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan
and Tajikistan with those of Pakistan and Afghanistan.] Greater
equality for women. Extraordinary accomplishments in science
and technology. Leadership in the (provisional) global defeat
of fascism in the 1940s. All of this good, for the most
part, in my opinion. On the other hand, gulags and purges and
policy disasters. Tragic, yes, even evil. Even people
and movements attempting great good make mistakes and commit
crimes. The real world is complex, and there are no utopias.
Best to just get used to it, and tailor one's expectations accordingly.)
Looking at the U.S. today, one obviously
sees---alongside much evil, including an egregious income differential
and poverty that helps produce the world's highest incarceration
level, mostly for victimless crimes---much to admire and appreciate.
And so the world, by and large, does view this country
favorably. Even in the Islamic world, according to a Zogby poll
taken in June, the U.S. is the most widely admired of all nations.
But from Mexico to the Philippines, the admiration is for us,
the American people, and the culture that we have created (that
happens to include a proud history of struggle against oppression),
not the U.S. government, or its military, or the U.S.
corporations that shape the fate of hundreds of millions. People
around the world distinguish between the American people and
the U.S. government, probably more so today than at any time
in recent history. A Palestinian kid burning an American flag
in rage because an F-16 attack has killed a dozen kids in Gaza
may very well be wearing a Boston Celtics T-shirt and have No
Doubt's latest album in his CD player at home.
I was dining with friends some years
ago in Hohhut, in Inner Mongolia, in the People's Republic of
China, when an elderly man of Mongolian ethnicity in a tattered
People's Liberation Army uniform came to our table to tell us
that he liked Americans. Back when he was fighting with Mao against
the Japanese, he declared, the Americans were China's friends.
But, he stated loudly and emphatically, the present U.S. government
was rotten. (He added that the Chinese government, then still
guided by Deng Xiaoping, was rotten too. No one in the crowded
restaurant batted an eyelash. Patriotic Chinese these days denounce
the government openly. They're not intimidated, post-Tienanmen.
"What're they gonna do? Shoot me?" they laugh. The
world can learn from their courage.)
Anyway, I found the old man's viewpoint-and
the distinction between the American people and the U.S. government
-- commonly expressed in China. I hear, too, from American students
returning from universities in Europe, China, and virtually everywhere,
that while they're personally liked, their government (I should
put that "their" in quotation marks) is widely opposed.
The students are challenged, and often truly taken aback, by
the degree of animosity that U.S. policy produces in the world---but
gratified (since nobody likes to be beaten up) that they are
not personally held accountable for the U.S. withdrawal from
the Kyoto Treaty, or World Court sabotage, or endorsement of
Sharon's murderous policies on the West Bank, etc. Most people
on the planet seem to recognize that we humble normal U.S. citizens
aren't really calling the foreign policy shots. That's a good
thing, and perhaps explains why Sept. 11 was a horrific anomaly
rather than a routine sort of incident.
This brings me, if circuitously, to the
topic: the adjective "anti-American," and its elevation
into a posited system of thought: "anti-Americanism."
(The term "un-American" is encountered less
frequently these days, maybe because it was so discredited by
the power abuses of the House Un-American Activities Committee
from 1937 to 1969. That term and concept, virtually criminalizing
not only opposition to an imagined America, but mere non-participation
in, or lack of support and enthusiasm for, someone's notion of
Americanness, is actually even more dangerous than "anti-American.")
What does it mean to be "anti-American," or to adhere
to the posited ideology, anti-Americanism?
I'll draw on my own experience. Having
helped organize a modestly successful teach-in on the "War
on Terrorism" at my university last year, I was approached
by one of my students, who also opposed the Bush administration's
course of action, and who happened to be on the campus newspaper
staff. She asked if she could interview me on my political views
and activities; I agreed. In that interview, I stated my opinion
that the U.S. government routinely deploys military force at
regular intervals, all over the world, on various pretexts, but
in general to create the optimal environment for the operations
of U.S. corporations and the accumulation of corporate wealth.
Which is true, of course, for better or worse. But reaction from
the campus's right wing press not long in coming. Students whom
I had never met reported in Tufts' "journal of conservative
thought" that "Leupp doesn't like America," etc.
Since this is just not the case (there are lots of things about
my country I like, as well as lots of things that make me sick,
which is probably also the case with the student writers themselves
and with most Americans), I considered responding, and gently
reminding the confused young writers that slander sometimes carries
legal ramifications. But I thought it better to ignore the article
than to draw attention to a publication most people on my campus
dismiss as of Ann Coulter quality anyway.
But it did set me to thinking. How does
a college student, or anybody else, interpret a matter-of-fact
acknowledgement of the imperialist character of this country,
and opposition to imperialist war, as an attack on the essence
of America? Just what is that essence?
Digression. On the same China trip mentioned
above, I visited Datong and its magnificent Buddhist artistic
sites. After arriving by train in the early evening I watched
the sun set while standing across from the station, washing down
boiled duck eggs with a bottle of the local beer (excellent,
although warm). The duck egg vender approached me kind of shyly
and asked me, an obvious foreigner, "What do you think about
China?"
"Tahao," I replied politely
and diplomatically, in my conversation-manual Mandarin. "Very
good!"
Contempt was written all over his face.
"Buhao (not good)," he insisted. I understood
his point, of course. I don't know much spoken or written Chinese,
but I have studied Japanese, and many Japanese written words
are derived from Chinese. So I wrote in the air, with my finger,
the Japanese word seifu, meaning "government,"
and expressed my agreement that the Chinese government was
buhao. The duck egg vender was delighted with this rational
comment, and then set about asking my opinion about various figures
in the then-current and recent Chinese governments. We thoroughly
agreed in our buhao verdict on Deng Xiaoping, just months
before his death, and as an interested crowd gathered (as they
tend to do in China when political conversations are taking place)
we found we had, in general, a common understanding of recent
Chinese history.
So getting back to the topic of anti-[pick
any country]-ism: was this young man in Datong "anti-Chinese"?
I'd guess he loves the gorgeous landscape of northern Shanxi
Province; loves his duck eggs and warm local beer; maybe loves
the poetry of Du Fu, probably appreciates the music of Cui Jian
(one of the world's finest rock musicians, and one example of
the good that U.S. culture can exert in this world). That is,
he probably loves his living environment, loves his country,
gets along with his neighbors. Just hates the government, which
seems eminently reasonable, since it is, in fact, pretty bad
and all.
Which brings this meandering rumination
to the heroic Samuel Clemens. What more quintessentially American
figure than the author of The Adventures of Mark Twain, The Adventures
of Huckleberry Finn, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court,
The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson, etc., that towering
figure of American letters who knew so intimately the heartland,
its accents, its rhythms, its soul? Samuel Clemens (aka Mark
Twain, 1835-1910) spent the last decade of his life castigating
the U.S. government for its occupation of the Philippines and
the other colonies it acquired following the Spanish-American
War of 1898. He was one of the top leaders of the Anti-Imperialist
League, an organization of Americans passionately opposed to
U.S. foreign policy, from 1900. Every high school student assigned
one of his works should be taught this, if just as background
biographical information: Mark Twain hated imperialism, including
American imperialism. And he had nothing but contempt for stupid
knee-jerk forms of patriotism.
But let him speak for himself. In 1908,
having been pronounced a "traitor" (if not an "anti-American")
for his outspoken opposition to the expanding U.S. empire, Clemens
wrote a piece distinguishing between "republican" patriotism
(as described in the Chinese examples above) and "monarchical"
patriotism.
"The gospel of monarchical republicanism
is 'The King can do no wrong.' We have adopted it with all its
servility, with an important change in the wording, 'Our country,
right or wrong!' We thrown away the most valuable asset we had---the
individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just
he himself) believed them to be wrong. We have thrown it away;
and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque
and laughable word; patriotism."
Yep, that's Mark Twain, a damn fine American,
just telling it like it was, and is.
Getting back to Marx (also a fine person).
Marx declared that the working people of the world in his day
had no country (yet), but as mentioned above, he thought
the star-spangled banner would carry the destiny of the global
working class. (Of course the stars and stripes had a different
meaning in the 1860s; watch the culminating scene in the film
Glory and you'll see what I mean.) Well, I'm a citizen
of the country in which Marx found so much promise, born and
raised here. I can't be anti-it, anti-myself, anti-my culture.
There'd be no point. I'm proud of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
Franklin, Tom Paine (especially Tom Paine). And so many others.
So proud to be part of the same culture as Walt Whitman, Gershwin,
Steinbeck, Woody Guthrie, Paul Robeson, Leonard Bernstein, Bob
Dylan, etc. I'm just listing randomly. Don't want to leave out
Rage Against the Machine-fine young American men. Edison and
Ford, for that matter; brilliant inventors, whatever their politics.
Proud that May Day started here; proud of the American labor
movement before it got coopted, the civil rights movement, the
Black Liberation Movement (and yes, proud of the heroic Huey
Newton and the Panthers). Proud of rock 'n roll. Proud that the
world's gay rights movement sees Stonewall as its inception,
and that the U.S. women's movement has resonated among feminists
worldwide.
So sure, I'm proud of my American roots.
I'd like so badly for my American people and the American banner
(whichever one we choose, the present one having acquired such
associations in the world's eyes as to perhaps be irredeemable)
to carry, in a positive sense, the destiny of the world's toiling
people as Marx predicted. Imagine the worldwide joy that would
explode, should the planet someday wake up to a mind-boggling
change here, to a regime that renounced aggression and arrogance
and sought instead to advance the evolving agenda-all about Power
to the People---that began with the revolution that broke out
in 1776.
"Anti-Americanism"? A vapid,
tendentious, Orwellian concept. Not an "ism," really,
but an epithet and tool of demonization. We should expunge it
from our vocabularies, as the civilized among us have expunged
some other words.
In contrast, of course, "anti-war,"
"anti-fascism" and "anti-imperialism" retain
their longstanding relevance and integrity, among the planet's
good decent people, including a critical mass of Yanks who just
might someday carry a banner that truly expresses the aspirations
of the people of the world.
Gary Leupp
is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University
and coordinator, Asian Studies Program.
He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu
Today's Features
Paul de Rooij
Smear Mongers
George Szamuely
International
Kangaroo Courts
Jack Wheeler
Janet Reno: America's Saddam?
Linda S. Heard
Portrait
of Uncle Sam
Gary Leupp
Random
Thoughts on Anti-Americanism
Wayne Madsen
Germany
Leads the Way
William Hughes
George
Will: War Pimp
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- Hunting Commie Perverts:
The Scarlet Professor
- DC's Best Political
Mind; DC's Most Dangerous Man;
- Dershowitz the Torturer:
Guess Why He Wants Clean Needles;
- Lese Majeste: That's
Against the Law Too;
- The Greatest Endorsement
AAA Will Ever Get;
- Merle Haggard on Civil
Liberties;
- Dullness Hailed: The Press on the Defeat of McKinney,
Traficant and Barr;
- National Review Puffs
into Town.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
September
21 / 22, 2002
Alexander
Cockburn
An Entire
Class
of Thieves
Tom Gorman
The Press & Sabra
and Shatila
Amelia Peltz
Anniversary with Life
in Palestine
Susan Martinez
By the Hand
of the Father
Ben Tripp
Advice from
a Polemicist
Adam Engel
From Above:
Forgetting bin Laden
Chris Clarke
The Ann Coulter Test
Tariq Ali
Doing as the
Romans Did
Mokhiber / Weissman
The Bush Victory
in Iraq
Ralph Nader
Greed Without Limits
Thomas Croft
The Life of Jim Cummings
Anthony Gancarski
Concerned Citizen:
a serialized Novel,
Episode One
Wolff, Dailey, Metres
& St. Clair
Poet's Basement
September
20, 2002
Joan Hoff
Debating
War:
the Forgotten Tradition
Norman Madarasz
Lessons from a Cyncial Master Jean
Chretien's
New York State of Mind
Mitchel Cohen
Toxic Wastes
and
the New World Order
Peter Lee
Why Bush
Wants This War
Bruce Jackson
20 Questions
About Bush's
War Against Arabs
Krystal Kyer
Greenwashing the Marketplace
September
19, 2002
Ron Jacobs
Cheney's
Vermont Breakfast
Ilija Trojanow
/ Ranjit Hoskote
Who Cares
for Human Rights?
It's a "Just" War
Jordy Cummings
How
to Silence
Pro Palestinian Voices
Salam Rahal
The Rape
of a Nation
Richard Falk
& David Krieger
War with
Iraq:
It's Not Bush's Decision
Ralph Nader
How Congress
Can Fight Corporate Crime
Kurt Nimmo
Bush Senior:
Hating Saddam, Selling Him Weapons
September
18, 2002
Rep. Cynthia
McKinney
Goodbye
to All That
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Cancerous
Air
Born Under a Bad Sky
Ben Tripp
Smoking
Gun
of a Hatchet Job
Peggy Thomson
20 Years
After:
Sabra and Shatila
Thomas Mountain
September
1982
Sabra and Chatila (Poem)
William Cook
Yet Another
Bush Doctrine
Kathleen Christison
Israel's Other Voices
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|