Product Description

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #323386 in Books
• Published on: 2008-03-03
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 392 pages

Review
"Hixson offers a provocative and comprehensive interpretation of the history of U.S. foreign affairs. It is about time that a radically different perspective on the Myth of America was presented."-Akira Iriye, Harvard University (Akira Iriye )

"Hixson wants the country to understand the extent to which its nationalism depends on war and violence for sustenance. His may be the first thoroughly `culturalist' reading of the entire history of American foreign policy."-Andrew M. Johnston,Carleton University, Ottawa (Andrew M. Johnston )

"Reminiscent of William A. Williams''s The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, but with all the tools of current scholarship, The Myth of American Diplomacy makes a sweeping case that Americans'' sense of their national destiny, more than threats from others, account for their long record of war, conquest, and expansion. It''s an important rebuttal to other scholars and a timely warning to other Americans."-Michael Sherry, Northwestern University (Michael Sherry )

"Emphasizing cultural construction and hegemony, Walter Hixson presents a spirited and provocative new interpretive history of U.S. diplomacy."-Emily S. Rosenberg, author of Financial Missionaries to the World: The Politics and Culture of Dollar Diplomacy, 1900-1930 (Emily S. Rosenberg )

"The Myth of American Diplomacy is a much-needed, highly innovative, and deeply enthralling synthesis of the cultural turn in diplomatic history. It is destined to become a standard, indispensable work for historians of American foreign relations."-Andrew Preston, Cambridge University (Andrew Preston )

"Hixson''s message may be one we are better off hearing now, before it is too late."-Timothy Renick, Christian Century (Timothy Renick Christian Century )

About the Author

Customer Reviews

A No Nonsense Must Read!
In The Myth of American Diplomacy Walter Hixson presents important historical material in a way that forces the reader to think outside of the box. Hixson's main argument is that "US foreign policy, bolstered by a usable past, encompasses a vast realm of representation and linguistic discourse that has served to create, affirm, and maintain cultural hegemony" (p. 9). In other words, it is our view of American history that has provided us with a means to constantly reaffirm our national identity. This national identity is especially important to Americans because as a nation we lack the long history of the European countries. Since we do not have a long term past to root our sense of identity in, we must constantly find ways to assure ourselves of our identity distinct from others.

Hixson argues that this usable past is the root of foreign policy. Americans constantly engage in rituals that reinforce the myth of our identity, such as singing "God Bless America" and celebrating national holidays such as Memorial Day and Thanksgiving. However, the most efficient and powerful way to reaffirm our national identity is through choosing war and violent action. This myth of American identity provides a space for the support of militant foreign policy. As can be seen throughout American history, external aggression helps promote internal unity. This external aggression need not be outside of the country as can be seen during times throughout our history the minorities within the country have provided a group to unify against. At times of extreme change or challenges to the idea of American identity militant foreign policy has provided a relief to the anxiety felt.

While Hixson's book may be seen as an attack on America, this only shows the great extent to which we as Americans have internalized the myth he discusses. The analysis of well-known episodes throughout American history and how they exhibit the greater ideas found in American national identity, expand the traditional history that Americans have been taught. Although the book discusses topics which are complex and require some deeper consideration, Hixson's inclusion of appendices that explain the theory used in the text are extremely valuable and help to make the book very readable. As a high school teacher, this book was very useful to me. Public schools, which are given standards by the government that they must meet, are perhaps one of the greatest perpetuators of the myth of American diplomacy. By expanding perspectives on the topic this book has helped to expand the manner in which I address such topics with my students.

Advice
In "The Myth of American Diplomacy," Walter Hixson argues that since the 17th century, Americans have internalized the "Myth," which includes concepts of American exceptionalism, racial superiority, patriarchy, and so on. The consumption of this Myth leads to domestic tensions that periodically percolate up to a breaking point, which causes us to essentially go abroad and seek monsters to destroy in order to reinforce national unity. For Hixson, every conflict in American history happens in the same way, through a regular cycle of violence spurred on by the Myth. His analysis is centered entirely on cultural explanations of foreign policy, and he owes a great deal to Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and other post-modernists. The reader is left wondering if things like national security or politics had any influence whatsoever. Of course, Hixson would argue that I would argue that, as I have so internalized the myth that I can't break out from it. Maybe, but I don't think so. Whatever the case, the construction of his thesis precludes criticism, as all can be disregarded in such a way. As a synthesis of revisionist scholarship and cultural theory, the book is of some use. In parts, his work can be insightful, if also wholly unoriginal. The narrative that Hixson constructs is unfortunately unsatisfying. Indeed, that is probably an understatement. He regularly misrepresents the historical record in order to fit the work into his impossibly rigid narrative. He suggests that there was an American national identity much earlier than any such thing actually existed, and further suggests that such an identity has been unchanged over the past several hundred years. The book becomes repetitive in theme and language--his use of theoretical buzzwords is only overshadowed in annoyance by his attempt to create new ones (also, try counting how many times he says "myriad"). Normally, I would not trivialize the work so, but this borders on the silly. For instance, he often proposes renaming events that he thinks have been characterized as too innocuous, like the War of 1812. For some reason he is not satisfied by the implications of such a term. The last chapter is so blatantly presentist and polemical that he should be ashamed. As far as I can tell, this book has been reviewed quite a bit, but often negatively. This is probably accurate. There are much better books that speak from his political position (try Andrew Bacevich), and much better revisionist literature (LaFeber, or even still WA Williams). I doubt that this book will be influential once the novelty of its provocative language fails. It is clearly suggested throughout that all of world history since the settlement of this continent by Europeans has hinged upon American identity, and all that has resulted has been bad. This is certainly exaggerated. What is perhaps most frustrating after all the ranting and raving is the solution that Hixson offers. Essentially, we should do something different. Good advice. Here is another bit: don't read this book.

Hixson's nonsense
Even though this book has many valid conclusions, the style of writing eclipses their validity. The book was evidently written to impress academic colleagues and is generally obtuse to the general public. Hixson specializes in obscure words and phrases that he uses over and over again. He also twists history by cherry picking quotes or parts of quotes that pick his thesis, virtually all of which come from secondary sources of writers that agree with his revisionist history. A look at the original sources of his quotes shows that he often distorts the views of historical players to fit his thesis. As an example, on page 61 he refers to "Franklin, the venerable first American, alluded to the 'design of Providence to extirpate these savages in order to make room for the cultivators of the earth.'" turning Franklin into an Indian hater. After watching Indians get drunk the on rum night before, Franklin actually proclaimed a witticism: "and indeed if it be the design of Providence to extirpate these savages in order to make room for the cultivators of the earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means. It has already annhilated all the tribes who formerly inhabited the seacoast." On the same page he writes of George Washington as an inveterate Indian killer. Actually throughout his career Washington respected Indians and sought continually to give them a fair shake. Quoting from Joseph Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington, "He did not view Native Americans as exotic savages but as familiar and formidable adversaries fighting for their own independence pretty much as he would do in their place." This book is filled with such misquotes and misguided fiery writing - a poor piece of scholarship.