In Oklahoma the State Legislature voted to end funding for public school Advanced Placement History Classes. I read the wikipedia entry, which discussed the idea of American Exceptionalism, but I am more curious about who are good examples of proponents and critics. It seems to me that the idea of American Exceptionalism could be linked to Eurocentric "The West and the Rest" ideas, and may also be considered a racist argument. Am I off base with my evaluation of this topic of Historical narrative? Who should I be reading?
This subject has a long history, but it's been getting a lot more play recently.
Let's rewind to the start. Back in the 1830s, when Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States and wrote Democracy in America, he observed that Americans "seemed exceptional in valuing practical attainments almost to the exclusion of the arts and sciences." The notion that the United States is qualitatively different from the rest of the world has come and gone in the 180 years since de Tocqueville published.
Even Stalin mentioned it. Back in 1929, American communist leader Jay Lovestone visited Moscow and told Stalin that the proletariat of the United States wasn't ready for the inevitable communist revolution. Stalin called the idea that the United States was any different from any other country a "heresy" and blasted Lovestone.
Generally, the notion of exceptionalism is based on the notion that America's geographic isolation, its abundant natural resources and its religious background mean that political or social movements in other countries are not applicable to the United States.
One of the better analyses of this topic was published in 1996 by Seymour Martin Lipset. It's called American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. Don't expect light reading if you pick this up. It gets technical fairly quickly. If you want an example of it, the Washington Post has published the first chapter of the book online.
no, AP History has not been banned in high schools re-read your article. Someone proposed a bill and it got passed in committee. It now needs to pass in the chamber as a whole and again in the second chamber. Passing in committee is a far way from becoming law especially if the committee is an unrepresentative sample of the state legislature (and i don't know the state's politics).
"The West and the Rest" ideas, and may also be considered a racist argument
sort of but not really (America and the rest not "the west"). It's an argument about America being exceptional and that's had a long impact on American life. You can argue it naturally underplays Americas sins vis a vie black slavery and Indian policy especially but also discrimination against minorities but it doesn't strike me as inherently racist especially in some interations.
Now why is this a big deal: we care about our national histories and myths. A good (though not 100% on point) example of this is George HW Bush's 1988 GOP nomination acceptance speech
My opponent's view of the world sees a long slow decline for our country, an inevitable fall mandated by impersonal historical forces. But America is not in decline America is a rising nation. He sees America as another pleasant country on the UN roll call somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe. I see America as the leader, a unique nation with a special role in the world. This has been call the American century because in it we were the dominate force for good in the world. We saved Europe, cured polio went to the moon and lit the world with our culture…
it's a more present focused vision of American exceptionalism but it gets the point across. This also interacts with federalism debates over who controls the school curriculum with many claiming the common core is a soft version of a mandated single curriculum for the nation but that's a different issue.
I would read Gary Gallagher to see how a version of this idea was important in the civil war era.
he Union represented the cherished legacy of the founding generation, a democratic republic with a constitution that guaranteed political liberty and afforded individuals a chance to better themselves economically. From the perspective of loyal Americans, their republic stood as the only hope for democracy in a Western world that had fallen more deeply into the stifling embrace of oligarchy since the failed European revolutions of the 1840s. Untold Unionists believed fervently that slaveholding aristocrats had established the Confederacy—and that they and their incipient nation posed a direct threat not only to the long-term success of the American republic but also to the broader future of democracy
http://uvamagazine.org/articles/required_reading_gary_gallagher