Were American "sentimental imperialism" (imperialism to spread ideals that are viewed as beneficial to the welfare of the rest of the world, like democracy) and the use of violence to spread American ideals consistent with the concept of the "City Upon a Hill?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The original concept of "City Upon a Hill," as stated by John Winthrop, was for the new colonies of America to be a beacon of Christianity to the world. The use of violence in Vietnam and in other places around the world in order to spread American ideals is completely contradictory to this statement. The original intention was not to actively spread ideals to people who didn't want them; it was simply to serve as a proper example for those searching guidance. In one of George Washington's speeches, he told America to stay out of foreign affairs. Thomas Jefferson and countless others argued this point in the early days of America. However, as America grew, the city upon a hill concept became corrupted. America began to try to fix all the worlds' problems, whether or not the world wanted it to. Vietnam is just a further corruption.
ReplyDeletePersonally I completely agree with Sammy in that the United States originally thought of itself as a model for how to live instead of “actively spreading ideals.” It strictly believed in Washington’s two-hemispheric policy and feared the creation of new allies that would later oblige them to enter into unnecessary conflicts on their behalf. However, after everything that happened during World War II, it is understandable how the United States believed their actions were consistent with a somewhat revised interpretation of “city upon a hill.”
ReplyDeleteIn WWII Hitler committed so many atrocities that the United States began to create a new code of morality and believe that sometimes simply being passive is the wrong thing to do. They began to believe that sometimes sitting by and witnessing someone else commit an immoral act is immoral as well. With this new mentality, along with the new obsession with combating communism (something viewed as an evil of the world), the United States began to consider itself the world police. Acting morally no longer solely involved setting a good example, but required actively supporting that which they viewed as most right. The United States demonstrated their belief in this mentality as they supported the Truman Doctrine which set the example of attempting to combat international communism. The United States thought they were still acting as a good example for the rest of the world, however in reality their actions called into question whether or not the United States was overstepping its boundaries. The mentality became more of an excuse, or justification of why the United States was in a devastating and pointless war.
Do you think that the evolution of the City Upon a Hill concept from a passive to an active source of global change was a corruption or a logical next step for the United States? The US as it existed in Winthrop's time was very different. It wasn't a world power, and it wasn't an established state; rather, it really was a Christian experiment. But in modern times, especially after World War II, America has taken the position of a global superpower. Vietnam may have shown that violence may not be warranted in spreading Western democratic ideals, but does the United States have some international "globocop" duty? With problems like the genocide in Darfur, does the United States as a world power have the duty to stop conflicts like that, whether by violent means or not? Do we have a humanitarian duty?
ReplyDelete