Dutch colonial History
Familie Kinfe-Van Sinttruijen
When I look into this newsbox there's a lot about the english. Probably
because you're mostly english, but that's not what I'm interested in. What I
want to know, is there anyone out there who is interested in Dutch
(colonial) history? I'd really like to know what foreigners think about
William of Orange (our 'founding father'), Stadhouder William III (King of
England), Stadhouder William V (the dutch Louie XVI), King William III and
Queen Wilhelmina (the dutch Victoria).
Also, it is said that the dutch war of independence (against the spanish)
was an example for the americans and french. This is probably true, but is
there anyone who can tell me more?
Thank you in advance!
CG Luxford
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Familie Kinfe-Van Sinttruijen wrote:
> Also, it is said that the dutch war of independence (against the spanish)
> was an example for the americans and french. This is probably true, but is
> there anyone who can tell me more?
>
An example for the Americans possibly (though I think it's a bit
tenuous), but not really the French.
The Dutch struggle for independence was partly nationalistic, and partly
religious. The Spanish monarch (a Hapsburg) was Catholic, the Dutch were
mostly Protestant.
Jonathan Israel's book, I think it's called _The Dutch Republic_, comes
highly recommended for the Netherlands in the early part of the period
in which you are interested.
Chris,
Joseph Rooney, Jr
>
>On Fri, 7 May 1999, Familie Kinfe-Van Sinttruijen wrote:
>
>> Also, it is said that the dutch war of independence (against the spanish)
>> was an example for the americans and french. This is probably true, but is
>> there anyone who can tell me more?
>>
>An example for the Americans possibly (though I think it's a bit
>tenuous), but not really the French.
>
>
I doubt that it was much of an example for the Americans either. I've
done a lot of reading about the American Revolution, as American
History is my primary area of concentration, but I've never come
across any references to the Dutch revolution being an influence.
Joe Rooney
-Friends help you move. Real Friends help you move bodies.
CG Luxford
My assumption was that the original poster was using the Dutch struggle
for independence as an exampole of a precedent rather than a direct
influence.
The Dutch extricated themselves from a foreign monarchy to become a
federal republic.
Though from what little I know of American history in this (or any
other) period this is largely co-incidental. After all he most famous
slogan from the early days was "no taxation without representation",
which refers to their dislike of the fact that the British government
was taxing them without letting anyone speak on their behalf. What they
really wanted was to uphold their rights as British subjects.
Chris,
Pilar Quezzaire
: I doubt that it was much of an example for the Americans either. I've
: done a lot of reading about the American Revolution, as American
: History is my primary area of concentration, but I've never come
: across any references to the Dutch revolution being an influence.
: Joe Rooney
What was a 'secret' influence of the American Revolution were Native
American concepts of government, in partciular the Iroquois Confederation.
I'm not saying there weren't others (anti-revisionists may jump OFF the
bandwagon now!) but some rather fascinating studies have come out about
the collections of Native American art of both George Washington and
Thomas Jefferson, who were both aware of Native American 'objects of
government' like wampum belts (one was actually given to Washington during
the Revolution) and 'peace pipes' to use a crude term. Jefferson was very
interested in these objects in particular, and took great interest in
Lewis and Clark's reports of Native American governmental styles as a
continuation of his studies. His collection of Native American objects i
still one of the most impressive in American art history.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar Quezzaire-Belle Art Geek quez...@fas.harvard.edu
"Social historian? Is that some kinda disease? A new virus, perhaps..."
"No. I'm one of those people who gets paid to discuss how stupid the rest
of humanity is. I'm Howard Stern with a respectable rep."
--Conversation online
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Leonards
(you might want to cross-post to soc.history.war.us-revolution).
However, the Founding Fathers were aware of the creation of the United
Provinces, as evidenced by Federalist No. 20. Hamilton and Madison
criticize the government of the Netherlands on two main counts: the
difficulty in raising funds, which led to the dominance of Holland
within the republic, due to its overwhelming wealth; and the requirement
of unanimity for action. Of course, the latter was one the "defects" of the
Articles of Confederation the Federalists were most eager to overcome.
It might be interesting to get an Anti-Federalist take on the Netherlands.
On the other hand, the 1780s were a particularly turbulent period for the
Netherlands, with the Patriot Revolution having been defeated with the
assistance of Britain (or was it Prussia)?
By the 1790s, the Dutch, as well as the French, would reject the American
Constitution's federalism in favor of a centralized "unitarist" system.
MLeonards
Joseph Rooney, Jr
>
>[snip]
>Though from what little I know of American history in this (or any
>other) period this is largely co-incidental. After all he most famous
>slogan from the early days was "no taxation without representation",
>which refers to their dislike of the fact that the British government
>was taxing them without letting anyone speak on their behalf. What they
>really wanted was to uphold their rights as British subjects.
>
>
Sounds like you know more american history than you give yourself
credit for! I'd be willing to bet that most Americans wouldn't be
aware of the distinction you just made.
CG Luxford
Maybe. Though what I know of the above is largely a side product of my
research into notions of English national identity, which I wrote about
for my MA. If the American Revolution was directly influenced by any
previous conflict, then the English Civil War seems as likelyas any,
since they were fighting for more or less the same thing, and for much
the same reasons. (Gross oversimplification I know)
If Americans are unaware of the distinctions made above then I would
wager that that is at least partly to do with the necessity to create an
American national identity which was separate from that of their English
former overlords.
Chris,
D. Spencer Hines
Actually, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was more in the minds of the
American Founders than the English Civil War.
John Locke was their philosophical underpinning.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Vietnam is a graveyard of lost hopes, destroyed
vanity, glib promises and good intentions." *** The lead sentence
filed by Time magazine correspondent Charles Mohr for an August 9,
1963, cover story. The sentence was not published in Time. *** And
Kosovo? That chapter is yet to be written.
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.95q.99051...@eis.bris.ac.uk...
Joseph Rooney, Jr
>Vide infra.
>
>Actually, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was more in the minds of the
>American Founders than the English Civil War.
>
>John Locke was their philosophical underpinning.
While I agree that the Glorious Revolution was probably more
influential on the American Revolution than the English Civil War, I
think the extent of Locke's importance can be overstated. Much
scholarship has uncovered the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment
thinkers. Bernard Bailyn has argued that "the effective triggering
convictions that lay behind the Revolution were derived not from
common Lockean generalities, but from specific fears and formulations
of the radical publicists and opposition politicians of early
eighteenth century England." [Quoted in Kramnick, "John Locke and
Liberal Constitutionalism."]
J.G.A. Pocock has been influential in repudiating the influence of
Locke. Pocock takes an interesting perspective, as he saysthe
Revolution was "the last great act of the Renaissance...emerging from
a line of thought which staked everything on a positive and civic
concept of the individual's virtue." [Also quoted in Kramnick, supra.]
However, I tend to agree with Kramnick when he says that, "But, in
seeking to free the entire eighteenth century of Locke...this new
broom has also swept away much that is truth." We need to recognize
the importance of other philosophical influences, and blend them in
with the ideas of Locke to get a true understanding of the
philosophical underpinnings of the American Revolution.
Joe
D. Spencer Hines
Interesting.
Well, yes, academics always need to come up with 'fresh insights' in
order to gain tenure and have careers.
Debunking a Great Man is a proven way to do that --- preferably a DWEM
[Dead White English Male].
Teaching the 'eternal verities' won't get anyone recognized these
days. So, a little creative Locke-bashing is certainly
understandable.
> "But, in seeking to free the entire eighteenth century of
> Locke...this new broom has also swept away much
> that is truth."
What a strange sentence. Why should anyone wish "to free the entire
eighteenth century of Locke....?"
Unless, of course, that was the secret agenda all along --- to debunk
the reputation of the Great Man DWEM.
Please tell us more about 'N.' Kramnick. Does he generally write this
way?
You seem somewhat conflicted on this matter.
Cheers,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Vietnam is a graveyard of lost hopes, destroyed
vanity, glib promises and good intentions." *** The lead sentence
filed by Time magazine correspondent Charles Mohr for an August 9,
1963, cover story. The sentence was not published in Time. *** And
Kosovo? That chapter is yet to be written.
Joseph Rooney, Jr <jr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:373b57a9...@news.mindspring.com...
D. Spencer Hines
What I asked was, what are the vitals on Kramnick. I know the others'
work.
Where does he ply his trade? When was he born and educated, et
cetera?
He sounds as if he's walking the cat back. A normal phenomenon in
History.
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Vietnam is a graveyard of lost hopes, destroyed
vanity, glib promises and good intentions." *** The lead sentence
filed by Time magazine correspondent Charles Mohr for an August 9,
1963, cover story. The sentence was not published in Time. *** And
Kosovo? That chapter is yet to be written.
Joseph Rooney, Jr <jr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:373b8d4f...@news.mindspring.com...
> "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>
> >Vide infra
> >
> >Interesting.
> >
> >Well, yes, academics always need to come up with 'fresh insights'
in
> >order to gain tenure and have careers.
> >
> >Debunking a Great Man is a proven way to do that --- preferably a
DWEM
> >[Dead White English Male].
>
> I'd hardly say that Bailyn & Pocock had to "bash" anybody in order
to
> have a career. For a serious student of the American Revolution,
> Bernard Bailyn is one of the scholars that you "must" know. His work
> is seminal. Pocock has a very good reputation in the field of
British
> legal and political history. Since a major issue in the history of
the
> American Revolution is the constitutional basis which the
Americans
> used to justify their actions, Pocock's field and American History
> converge.
> >
> >Teaching the 'eternal verities' won't get anyone recognized these
> >days. So, a little creative Locke-bashing is certainly
> >understandable.
> >
> >> "But, in seeking to free the entire eighteenth century of
> >> Locke...this new broom has also swept away much
> >> that is truth."
> >
> >What a strange sentence. Why should anyone wish "to free the
entire
> >eighteenth century of Locke....?"
>
> Kramnick is a scholar who holds to the traditional view that Locke
is
> a significant, perhaps "the significant," philosophical influence on
> the American Revolutionary leaders. In the essay I quoted from,
> Kramnick details the significant scholarly work which assails Lockes
> position as the most important philosophical influence. He then goes
> on to point out that they are wrong. The above sentence was from the
> intro to the section in Kramnick's essay in which he begins to argue
> that that the new scholarship (new being circa 1970s) had gone too
> far.
> >
> >Unless, of course, that was the secret agenda all along --- to
debunk
> >the reputation of the Great Man DWEM.
> >
> >Please tell us more about 'N.' Kramnick. Does he generally write
this
> >way?
>
> What's wrong with the way he writes? Kramnick is one of the
foremost
> scholars on US constitutional history.
>
> >
> >You seem somewhat conflicted on this matter.
>
> Not at all. I simply pointed out that there is a significant body of
> historical opinion that no longer considers John Locke to be the
most
> important influence on American Revolutionary thought. I then said
> that I felt that Locke still had his place, but that other
influences
> also had to be considered. So, while i still think that Locke is
> probably the most important thinker who influenced the Revolution,
his
> contribution must be considered in light of several other political
> writers who also had significant, though not preeminant influence.
Joseph Rooney, Jr
Joseph Rooney, Jr
>Thank you.
>
>What I asked was, what are the vitals on Kramnick. I know the others'
>work.
>
>Where does he ply his trade? When was he born and educated, et
>cetera?
I don't have the date right at hand. I've read a number of pieces he's
written, I know he's highly regarded in the field of US Constitutional
History, but not anything specific about him at my fingertips. The
work I quoted from was orignially published in 1982 by the American
Historical Review. under the title "Republican Revisionism Revisited."
>
>He sounds as if he's walking the cat back. A normal phenomenon in
>History.
If you mean by that that he is reacting to revisionist interpretations
of the American Revolution, yes. Which is why he made such a sweeping
statement about attempts at removing Locke from the 18th century. It
was a reaction to what he saw as the end of the revisonists work. Yet,
I will note that he shows nothing but respect for Bailyn and Pocock
though he disagrees with their conclusions.
Familie Kinfe-Van Sinttruijen
> Netherlands, with the Patriot Revolution having been defeated with the
> assistance of Britain (or was it Prussia)?
>
to Wilhelmina of Prussia, the sister of the Prussian king.
> By the 1790s, the Dutch, as well as the French, would reject the American
> Constitution's federalism in favor of a centralized "unitarist" system.
>
Indeed, that's why the Dutch created a kingdom after the French left! The
Dutch always work the other way around. When everyone is creating big
empires, ruled by absolute kings and queens, we founded ourselves a
republic. When Napoleon had left Europe, republics were born everywhere.
Except in the Netherlands, where a king was installed!
Familie Kinfe-Van Sinttruijen
> Actually, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was more in the minds of the
> American Founders than the English Civil War.
>
Probably so, and the Dutch were involved in this revolution too! It was the
Dutch Stadhouder William III, who chased James II away. He then became king,
being married to Mary, James' daughter.
Everywhere one goes, the Dutch turn up too! Only the moon has proven to be
too great a step for our little wet kingdom!
John Wilson
Joseph Rooney, Jr wrote in message <373a1215...@news.mindspring.com>...
>CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>[snip]
>>Though from what little I know of American history in this (or any
>>other) period this is largely co-incidental. After all he most famous
>>slogan from the early days was "no taxation without representation",
>>which refers to their dislike of the fact that the British government
>>was taxing them without letting anyone speak on their behalf. What they
>>really wanted was to uphold their rights as British subjects.
>>
Though, actually, as I recall, the taxes were less than what some
residents in England paid. I think it was a feeling that the British upper
class looked down on colonials. I seem to recall that Benjamin Franklin
changed from wanting more recognition for the colonies to wanting separation
because of the way he was treated as an envoy.
>>
>
>Sounds like you know more american history than you give yourself
>credit for! I'd be willing to bet that most Americans wouldn't be
>aware of the distinction you just made.
>Joe Rooney
Getting back to New Amsterdam, why were the Dutch unwilling to
support Stuyvesant, aside from the fact that defense was hopeless? Did
most Dutch there feel that the Company was exploiting them, and providing no
protection in return? (I've just been reading _The Dutchman_, by Maan
Meyer - not my favorite mystery, but somewhat interesting. Anyone have any
idea on how accurate it is?)
John GW
CervenFinn
If Americans are unaware of the distinctions made above then I would
wager that that is at least partly to do with the necessity to create an
American national identity which was separate from that of their English
former overlords. >>
As an American of multicultural extraction, I do not think there is yet an
American national identity. If so, we wouldn't always be trying to assert our
Irish-Americanness, or Czech-Americanness...etc. My background is far too
complicated to list here, so all I can say is that my Russian/Polish/Prussian
great grandmother used to say to my Dutch/Welsh/English/French/etc. great
grandfather that "we are in America, so we speak English." She never said
anything about defining our culture.
Needless to say, my family has only complicated the issue since by marrying
further multiculturally.
Chris Cervenka Finney
Chris Price
> <snip>
>
> As an American of multicultural extraction, I do not think there is
> yet an
> American national identity. If so, we wouldn't always be trying to
> assert our
> Irish-Americanness, or Czech-Americanness...etc.
<snip>
As a Brit I can assure you that there is a very evident American
national identity, at least among those Americans who travel to Europe,
no matter the colour of their skin or the hyphenation they give
themselves.
Chris Price
Joseph Rooney, Jr
No doubt. But at home we often don't recognize it. As an example. I'm
Irish American. My family is very into preserving "our" heritage.
This is only the case in the last 20 years, but nonetheless it is
significant. I think all Americans are searching back for their
origins as part of the multicultural movement.
CG Luxford
On 22 May 1999, CervenFinn wrote:
> <<
> If Americans are unaware of the distinctions made above then I would
> wager that that is at least partly to do with the necessity to create an
> American national identity which was separate from that of their English
> former overlords. >>
>
> As an American of multicultural extraction, I do not think there is yet an
> American national identity.
While many Americans do like to retain elements of their ancestral
identity from the "old country", there are definitely a number of
defining charecteristics of American culture. The most important of
these is probably the unique brand of "individualism" which has led the
USA to be the only major developed country to have never had a decent
social security system, or state run medical system, but that's off
topic.
The "pioneer spirit" is probably the most potent myth of American
national origins, covering everything from the earliest colonists
(remembered in the relatively recent "Thanksgiving" holiday) through to
the wild west.
> If so, we wouldn't always be trying to assert our
> Irish-Americanness, or Czech-Americanness...etc. My background is far too
> complicated to list here, so all I can say is that my Russian/Polish/Prussian
> great grandmother used to say to my Dutch/Welsh/English/French/etc. great
> grandfather that "we are in America, so we speak English." She never said
> anything about defining our culture.
>
> Needless to say, my family has only complicated the issue since by marrying
> further multiculturally.
>
The "melting pot", another important aspect of American national
identity.
Given that there was a wide variety of cultural and religious
backgrounds even in colonial America, never mind later, it was
inmportant to try and create a culture in which everyone could have a
share. This was never completely succesful, but it is still a myth which
people buy into. The idea that anyone, from whatever background, could
become succesful with nothing more than a bit of hard work.
Chris,
Joseph Rooney, Jr
>
[snip]
>
>The "pioneer spirit" is probably the most potent myth of American
>national origins,
What exactly do you consider to be "myth" about American "pioneer
spirit?" Of all the things that have been written about the American
frontier, whereever it may have been, the spirit or attitude of those
individuals who lived on the frontier is probably the most accurately
reported part of the American West. I'm not really challanging your
statement, just trying to understand what the perception of this
aspect of American history is from across the pond.
[snip]
>Given that there was a wide variety of cultural and religious
>backgrounds even in colonial America, never mind later, it was
>inmportant to try and create a culture in which everyone could have a
>share. This was never completely succesful, but it is still a myth which
>people buy into. The idea that anyone, from whatever background, could
>become succesful with nothing more than a bit of hard work.
It is a little appreciated fact of American colonial history just how
diversified the colonies were at the time of American independence. so
diversified that Franklin feared that German would become the national
language. It is also little recognized just how much cultural
crossover existed between the frontiersman and Native Americans.
Joe
Mary Gentle
> CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >The "pioneer spirit" is probably the most potent myth of
>American national origins,
>
> What exactly do you consider to be "myth" about American
>"pioneer spirit?" Of all the things that have been written
>about the American frontier, whereever it may have been, the
>spirit or attitude of those individuals who lived on the
>frontier is probably the most accurately reported part of
>the American West.
<snip>
I think this would mean 'myth' in its proper sense, not in
the casual usage, 'falsehood'. In the same way that Dunkirk,
say, was both a documented historical event, and a mythic
base for a particular form of British patriotism.
CG Luxford
part of the collective memory of most Americans, including, it would
appear, Joe Rooney.
Few Americans today live the kind of life in which the "pioneer spirit"
is at all relevant. It is however something which I have often heard
evoked in a variety of contexts. As part of America's national identity,
the two sets of people who are most important seem to be the pilgrim
fathers, and the pioneers who helped expand the contry westwards. Mostly
because these two groups represent "man against the elements" and, more
to the point perhaps; the individual for himself, and his family.
That's the thing about national myths, they can be true, even verifyably
so, without being any less mythic.
Chris,
Joseph Rooney, Jr
>
>On Tue, 25 May 1999, Mary Gentle wrote:
>> jr...@mindspring.com (Joseph Rooney, Jr) wrote:
>> > CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > >
>> > [snip]
>> > >
>> > >The "pioneer spirit" is probably the most potent myth of
>> >American national origins,
>> >
>> [snip]
>>
>> I think this would mean 'myth' in its proper sense, not in
>> the casual usage, 'falsehood'.
[snip]
>This is exactly the sense in which I was using the word "myth". It is a
>part of the collective memory of most Americans, including, it would
>appear, Joe Rooney.
Ok, under that usage, I'll agree with you.
>
>Few Americans today live the kind of life in which the "pioneer spirit"
>is at all relevant.
I'm not sure about that, but too tired at the moment to argue its
relevancy in the modern world.
It is however something which I have often heard
>evoked in a variety of contexts. As part of America's national identity,
>the two sets of people who are most important seem to be the pilgrim
>fathers, and the pioneers who helped expand the contry westwards. Mostly
>because these two groups represent "man against the elements" and, more
>to the point perhaps; the individual for himself, and his family.
>
>That's the thing about national myths, they can be true, even verifyably
>so, without being any less mythic.
>
>
The local Borders bookstore runs a history discussion group once a
month, and which met tonight. A gentleman who is the chief historian
for NASA heads the discussion. The book for this month was on the
making of the American frontier. The discussion evolved around to the
idea of national identity, and it was observed that Americans are
unique in that our national identity is centered around a set of
ideas/ideals rather than linguistic or ethnic heritage. As such, the
pioneers are a powerful image because they embody the ideas/ideals
that bond us together as a nation.
Joe
Paul J Gans
[...]
>The local Borders bookstore runs a history discussion group once a
>month, and which met tonight. A gentleman who is the chief historian
>for NASA heads the discussion. The book for this month was on the
>making of the American frontier. The discussion evolved around to the
>idea of national identity, and it was observed that Americans are
>unique in that our national identity is centered around a set of
>ideas/ideals rather than linguistic or ethnic heritage. As such, the
>pioneers are a powerful image because they embody the ideas/ideals
>that bond us together as a nation.
I'll agree with one change. The word "embody" above should,
I think read "are thought to embody".
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Alan R Williams
[snip]
> The local Borders bookstore runs a history discussion group once a
> month, and which met tonight. A gentleman who is the chief historian
> for NASA heads the discussion. The book for this month was on the
> making of the American frontier. The discussion evolved around to the
> idea of national identity, and it was observed that Americans are
> unique in that our national identity is centered around a set of
> ideas/ideals rather than linguistic or ethnic heritage.
I don't think that Americans are unique in that aspect. For instance,
Swiss national identity is centred around a set of ideals (opposition
to external rule, very localized government) rather than linguistic or
ethnic heritage.
> As such, the
> pioneers are a powerful image because they embody the ideas/ideals
> that bond us together as a nation.
> Joe
Alan
--
Alan Williams, Room IT301, Department of Computer Science,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
Tel: +44 161 275 6270 Fax: +44 161 275 6280
John Wilson
Joseph Rooney, Jr wrote in message
>month, and which met tonight. A gentleman who is the chief historian
>for NASA heads the discussion. The book for this month was on the
>making of the American frontier. The discussion evolved around to the
>idea of national identity, and it was observed that Americans are
>unique in that our national identity is centered around a set of
>pioneers are a powerful image because they embody the ideas/ideals
>that bond us together as a nation.
>
>Joe
Given this last is true, then the Daniel Boone type as the typical
American founder is indeed a myth. A more accurate picture of the person
who made the US into a nation would be the schoolmaster or schoolmarm, with
spelling book in hand. Spelling was an initiation rite into American
society.
For a country to be unified, the group of people who wield power
probably must have common interests. Of course, another tie is commercial
interests. Cato saying that Carthage must be destroyed and showing a fresh
fig from Africa. Generally commercial interests will tie an area together.
However, from the MA, we know that that is not sufficient to guarantee a
common governmental authority.
Also, the range of weapons systems may play a role, but from the
raiding of the Vikings and the Mongols, we know that will not unify.
It is helpful for an area to form one society if people from
different towns can get together and have common topics of conversation,
which may not be terribly important - Billy Whiskers, history, the Denver
Broncos, or the Seattle Mariners, etc. If you don't have these, a group
of people from Pagosa Springs may get together and discuss Old Bea Williams
and whether she was the prototype for the Duchess in Red Ryder, but this
means people from elsewhere are left to form their own discussion group.
Such conversations are the oil that makes the wheels of society turn
smoothly.
This was the point of the drive for multiculturalism. Simply a
challenge to the existing power structure. Some deplore the rebels of the
'60's becoming yuppies, but it was as inevitable as the communists attacking
the aristocracy of Tsarist Russia and then becoming the most reactionary
aristocracy in Europe.
John GW
(What, me cynical - never!)
Steven D. Majewski
Alan R Williams <ala...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>jr...@mindspring.com (Joseph Rooney, Jr) writes:
>[snip]
>> The local Borders bookstore runs a history discussion group once a
>> month, and which met tonight. A gentleman who is the chief historian
>> for NASA heads the discussion. The book for this month was on the
>> making of the American frontier. The discussion evolved around to the
>> idea of national identity, and it was observed that Americans are
>> unique in that our national identity is centered around a set of
>> ideas/ideals rather than linguistic or ethnic heritage.
>
>Swiss national identity is centred around a set of ideals (opposition
>ethnic heritage.
>
Ahh! But is'nt 'American Exceptionalism' the other part of the 'myth' ?
---| Steven D. Majewski (804-982-0831) <sd...@Virginia.EDU> |---
---| Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics |---
---| University of Virginia Health Sciences Center |---
---| P.O. Box 10011 Charlottesville, VA 22906-0011 |---
"IA-64 looks just about like what you would expect from a PA-RISC
and IA-32 train wreck with a little VLIW thrown in for spice."
* Thomas J. Merritt <t...@spam.codegen.com> in <news:comp.arch> *
Alan R Williams
> In article <uwnaeup...@cs.man.ac.uk>,
> Alan R Williams <ala...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> >jr...@mindspring.com (Joseph Rooney, Jr) writes:
> >[snip]
> >> The local Borders bookstore runs a history discussion group once a
> >> month, and which met tonight. A gentleman who is the chief historian
> >> for NASA heads the discussion. The book for this month was on the
> >> making of the American frontier. The discussion evolved around to the
> >> idea of national identity, and it was observed that Americans are
> >> unique in that our national identity is centered around a set of
> >> ideas/ideals rather than linguistic or ethnic heritage.
> >
> >I don't think that Americans are unique in that aspect. For instance,
> >Swiss national identity is centred around a set of ideals (opposition
> >to external rule, very localized government) rather than linguistic or
> >ethnic heritage.
> >
>
> Ahh! But is'nt 'American Exceptionalism' the other part of the 'myth' ?
:-> Probably. When visiting the US I have come across some weird
cases of "invented here syndrome". The worst case was when I was at a
conference when the OJ Simpson verdict came out. OK that was bad
enough (they stopped the conference so we could all hear the news) but
the weirdness was an American who believed that the US was the only
country in the world which had jury trials! When I finally convinced
him that other countries had them, he then claimed that those
countries were just copying the US. It seemed that the only basis for
his belief was that "juries are a good thing" implied that "juries are
a US invention".
> ---| Steven D. Majewski (804-982-0831) <sd...@Virginia.EDU> |---
> ---| Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics |---
> ---| University of Virginia Health Sciences Center |---
> ---| P.O. Box 10011 Charlottesville, VA 22906-0011 |---
Alan