Jackson Lears. The Cycles of American History. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Thomas Paine and the Promise of America. Harvey J. Special Providence. Walter Russell Mead. Nell Irvin Painter. The American Political Tradition. From Wealth to Power. Fareed Zakaria. An Unfinished Revolution. Robin Blackburn. The Age of Reform. Next American Nation. Michael Lind. Should America Pay? Raymond Winbush PhD. Who Owns History? Eric Foner. Interpretations of American History, 6th Ed, Vol. Gerald N. Not Fit for Our Society.
Library Hub Discover
Peter Schrag. Two volume set. Michael Kazin. The Monroe Doctrine. Jay Sexton. Why Coolidge Matters. Charles C. A Nation Among Nations. Thomas Bender. Dangerous Nation. Robert Kagan. The Impossible Presidency. Jeremi Suri. The Contours of American History.
Holdings: Debating American exceptionalism :
William Appleman Williams. America's Three Regimes. Morton Keller. Sean Wilentz. Why America Needs a Left. Eli Zaretsky. A Necessary Evil. Garry Wills. Fog of War. Kevin M. Making Foreigners. Kunal M.
ASAP U. The Princeton Review. Black Liberation and Socialism. Ahmed Shawki. What Lincoln Believed. Simon Winchester. Cultures of violence.
Shop now and earn 2 points per $1
Ivan Evans. American Conservatism. Bruce Frohnen. Letters From Burma.
- Navigation menu?
- How Not to Write the History of U.S. Empire | Diplomatic History | Oxford Academic;
- American imperialism - Wikipedia.
Aung San Suu Kyi. Work and Struggle. Paul Le Blanc. Pol Pot. Philip Short. Was the American Revolution a Mistake? Burton Weltman. The World the Civil War Made. Kate Masur. The Shadowline, a Confession. Joseph Conrad. America's Forgotten Constitutions. Robert L. Liberty and Coercion. Gary Gerstle. In the Valley of Mist. Justine Hardy. Race and Liberty in America. Jonathan Bean. I Am the Change. Charles R. Toward Freedom Land. Harvard Sitkoff. A History of Modern Morocco. Susan Gilson Miller. Progressive Historians. Sunil Khilnani.
Mountain of Fame. John E. World War I and the American Constitution. William G. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, Bell postulated that the world-encompassing grand ideologies of communism and capitalism were exhausted, and would be replaced by pragmatic secular dispositions. Fousek, John. Gaddis, John Lewis. Oxford: Clarendon, Gaddis utilizes freshly released resources to corroborate his contention that Communist ideology played a central role in shaping the policies and actions of Soviet Union leaders.
Hartz, Louis. The Liberal Tradition in America. Louis Hartz repurposed the arguments of de Tocqueville, Turner, and Sombart to claim that the absence of class conflict from a liberal capitalist order had rendered impossible the emergence of socialism within US territorial borders. Kennan, George. Kolko, Joyce, and Gabriel Kolko. Lepgold, Joseph, and Timothy McKeown. An Empirical Analysis. Lepgold and McKeown examine several commonly held views about the exceptionalist disposition undergirding American foreign policy: 1 that American foreign policy is exceptionally moralistic, 2 that policymakers are judgmental about the domestic affairs of other countries, and 3 that they are mistrustful of entangling alliance.
After garnering empirical evidence that exposes these beliefs as either utterly inaccurate or greatly exaggerated, Lepgold and McKeown offer an alternative frame for the exceptionalist debate. American exceptionalism authorizes incommensurable facets of its distinctiveness: the praiseworthy voluntarism, individual initiative, personal responsibility and the disreputable self-serving behavior, disregard for the common good.
These contradictory representations contribute to a dichotomous international outlook: an isolationist foreign policy tradition and an interventionist foreign policy tradition. Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr. In this seminal work, Schlesinger maintains that the Cold War was the necessary and natural outcome of the global disagreements between the two superpowers.
United States Department of State. Westad, Odd Arne. Westad has two major aims: to call attention to the areas of the world that had been marginalized during the Cold War, and to explain how the Cold War was responsible for introducing long-standing problems into these regions. Westad specifically argues that the United States and the Soviet Union brought about a semipermanent state of civil war in these areas. By the late s, military actions in Vietnam prompted large numbers of Americans to question the direction of US Cold War foreign policy.
President Johnson had explained the US intervention in Vietnam in exceptionalist terms as an effort to liberate the Vietnamese people from Communist tyranny. However, McCrisken espies an afterlife of the American Century throughout the post-Vietnam era when a succession of presidents referenced the war to describe the lessons they learned to prevent recurrence of the Vietnam syndrome. Skinner, et al. Baritz, Loren.
Morrow, Baritz contends that our enemy fought a political and psychological war against American culture; we fought a conventional war and were trapped by our own cultural assumptions of American invincibility. Baritz believes that American foreign policy is driven by our cultural myth of America.
Because the North Vietnamese understood American culture, they believed they could win if they could outlast American patience. The failure to achieve a swift, decisive victory assured defeat. Kagan, Robert. The World America Made.
Get this edition
Lieven, Anatol. Lieven argues that normative American patriotism harbors a historical monster—a militaristic nationalism that imagines America in an apocalyptic struggle against the savages. Logevall, Fredrik. New York: Random House, Logevall frames the Vietnam War within the context of colonial modernity as the Vietnamese struggle with a colonial oppressor. In this comprehensive analysis, Logevall excavates the debates among US decision-makers that he regards as crucial to understanding the significance of the Vietnam War to American politics and foreign policy.
McCrisken, Trevor B. American Exceptionalism and the Legacy of Vietnam: U. McCrisken examines the continuing influence of the Vietnam syndrome on the American exceptionalist underpinnings of US foreign policy. McCrisken offers impressive evidence to buttress his contention that the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations deployed the Vietnam syndrome to fashion a set of procedures that reflected exceptionalist ideals. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, McEvoy-Levy examines the combination of soft and hard power stratagems that the Bush and Clinton administrations extracted from the discourse of American exceptionalism to build a post—Cold War domestic and international consensus.
She is especially astute in her analysis of the role of rhetoric in instrumentalizing public diplomacy. Patman, Robert G. Patman argues that the concept of American exceptionalism in US foreign policy has not changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War.
Isolating the revival of religious fundamentalist rhetoric, Patman offers numerous examples of Bush Jr. Pease, Donald E. The New American Exceptionalism. According to Pease, when one version of American exceptionalism no longer suits extant geopolitical demand, policymakers reconfigure its elements to address the change in geopolitical circumstances. Skinner, Kiron K. New York: Free Press, This collection of his writings includes the journal entries and short radio commentaries Reagan recorded during the prepresidential period — that faithfully recorded his thoughts on the issues of the day in some form.
Throughout the Cold War, US dominance was sustained through the US representation of itself as an exception to the rules through which it regulated the rest of the global order. But with the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the formation of the European Union, the United States lost its threatening socialist-totalitarian-Russian antagonist as well as its destabilized dependent European ally.
After the United States lost the geopolitical rationale for the representation of itself as an exception to the laws of nations, the United States lost the putative right to establish the rules for the global order. American exceptionalism had legitimated the US global sovereignty by basing it upon representations of a dichotomized world order over which the United States exercised the legal power to rule. Appleby, Joyce. Appleby describes American exceptionalism as an ahistorical, grand national narrative that perforce excludes ethnic, racial, gender, and regional minorities from historical representation.
She specifically argues that it excludes Native Americans, African Americans slaves, and white women. Link Eds. The price of losing the China market would be too costly for the United States to bear yet the acquisition of the Philippine islands could avert such a loss. The US government was put under an immense amount of pressure from numerous groups, most especially big businesses, to hold onto the islands as a stepping-stone to the vast outlets of China.
The US needed a strong, stable economy, something they hoped China would help them on the path towards. The islands were a prime position for the extension of US influence in the China market and would provide them with a base should the power struggle over spheres of influence come to a conflict. This was the perfect time to act in the interest of the United States economy.
The importance of expanding its trading empire for the recovery of the nation serves only to highlight just how important the acquisition of the Philippines was to the future of the United States. This in turn emphasises the China trade as prime motivation for the retention of the Philippine archipelago.
The US could not hand over such valuable land to another major power and risk 71 Thomas J.
2014 ASN Book Prize
Many foreign policy thinkers were convinced that to abandon the Philippines would be unwise. The boundless markets and millions of consumers in China and the Philippines were exactly what the US needed after the troubles of the depression. For some, this foreign venture would be of much greater concern.
A number of key political figures, including Massachusetts senator George F. Hoar R , saw that by extending US control to the Philippines they were placing a further burden upon the nation. What was not so clear is how in fact it was so effectual. It is evident that the violent retaliation of the Filipinos to continued American military presence on the archipelago served only to spur on the annexationists and expansionists to rally for their cause.
The rhetoric of imperialism possessed racism, and in the case of American imperialism, the image given of itself as the superior race was to be forever prominent on the road to empire. The justification for taking the Philippines, given by a number of senior members of government, was the desire to help the Filipinos on their way to becoming a self-governing race. The issue of race is commonplace in US history, especially so in issues concerning foreign policy. This chapter intends to explain and analyse the extent to which ideas of race and civilisation influenced the US decision to govern the islands.
Furthermore, in doing so, it aims to make clear the idea that their lack of enthusiasm to fully prepare the Filipino people for self-government served only to show their hidden intention; to retain the islands as a stepping stone for their main goal: access to the crucial China market. On December 21, , President William McKinley proclaimed that the US presence on the archipelago was to execute a policy of benevolent assimilation.
S life and that which their people deem as normality.