Jihad Vs. Mcworld By Benjamin R. Barber

Over and over again, Williams illustrates this theme of “American Exceptionalism.” Throughout the book, there are several occurrences in which the “We are the best, and all that we are doing is of benefit to the world” mentality is shown. On one hand, there is nothing wrong with being proud of roots as an American and believing that America is the greatest country, but on the other hand, using this thought process in in order to legitimize the domination and control of other nations unlike America while preaching one set of values and acting on others, is wrong. We see these actions play out time and time again as America invades and controls other countries “to help” them, however, prohibits the country from experiencing the full advantages of self-determination – a value that America claims to hold i.e. a tragedy of American Diplomacy.

Since its inhabitance, competition and dominance has been a concept that remains prevalent throughout American life. Past ideologies such as Manifest Destiny, Cultural Imperialism, and Ethnocentrism are all practices and beliefs comprising what it means to be American for many citizens, while also continually shaping outside perception of Americans today. On one hand, many countries have and continue to fully embrace American culture, globalization, and the rise of capitalism. In contrast, many countries have and continue to reject America’s stride for world assimilation regarding their ideals and values.

The United States “regular[ly] resort[s] to war” on the foundation of a “militant foreign policy,” which is associated with a “hegemonic national identity.”3 According to Hixson, the militancy of foreign policy stems from western Europe whose “colonialism and imperialism…flowed from the aggressive expansion of a…worldview that apotheosized its way of life as ordered, reasoned and providentially

From the dawn of man, the different civilizations of mankind have been out to dominate and conquest the globe. To spread his/her’s power, authority, and culture across as vast an area humanly possible. Only in the last century have these ideals been diminished, but for the U.S. during the turn of the 20th century it faced a choice on this path. Was the U.S. to remain to the domain of the contiguous United States? Or was it destined to take foot on the global stage and claim land far from it’s shores? William Graham Sumner, an American sociologist and Albert Beveridge, a U.S. senator from Indiana both disagreed as to whether imperialism was right for the country. Beveridge argues that imperialism is beneficial to the U.S. by giving access to raw materials, while Sumner fears that imposing rule on someone who does not want to be ruled makes us the exact people that we declared our independence from. This is just one example from their different views on American Imperialism.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

All through the Cold War the United States attempted to contain or squash developments that it saw as dangers to American financial or security objectives, in Europe, in Asia, in different parts of the alleged Third World, and at home. Communists, patriots, individual voyagers, neutralists, and activists for popular government and human rights, at different times, felt American rage in the half-century after 1945. In no spot, be that as it may, did American exertions to attest its hobbies and impede the will of the local populace happen as seriously or shockingly as in Vietnam. Despite the fact that a little, immature nation which has been subjected to violence and resistance through the years, not to

I believe that McClay and Zinn provide a persuasive argument elaborating their notion of the validity of America’s “unique” mission. However, I am inclined to agree with Professor McClay in his assertion in the mythical nature of American exceptionalism that has promoted social cohesiveness and propelled America as the “beacon of liberty and democracy” (McKenna & Feingold 2011, 14). The existence of present-day America developed after a period of empirical practices that allowed us to incorporate the positive qualities of democracy and make note of the negative aspects of wrongfully enforcing democratic ideals internationally (McKenna & Feingold 2011). Since our inception, the “invisible hand” of “divine providence” has directed America to propagate freedom and democracy to all peoples of the world (McKenna & Feingold 2011, 2-3). The majority of American Presidents

The idealization of a pure culture creates a strong wave of chauvinism. America became the epicenter for the idealized culture to form, but idealization leaves out the human aspect surrounding it. Mukherjee added to this idealization, dreaming, “’America’ in contrast, exists as a myth of democracy and equal opportunity to live by, or as an ideal goal to reach” (Mukherjee 1997, para.1). Mukherjee’s dream is beautiful and what many people desire out of America, however America is not an ideal; it

In conclusion, Donald Trump is both charismatic and holds himself in high esteem, he is eager to explain how exceptionally well he did in the election and does this in great length in his speeches. He even has a framed map of the 2016 election results displayed in the White House (Lozada, 2017). In his recent speech in Poland, Trump made reference to the ‘West’ ten times. Beinart (2017) argues that in this context the West is not a geographical term, but a racial and religious one. Trump is unlike his predecessors, who acknowledged that democracy and capitalism were not Western, but the universal aspiration of humankind. Previous leaders of the US discussed globalisation as a process where America improved the world. However, Trump describes globalisation as a process by which the world cheats, weakens and threatens America. His words, ‘The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive’ (Trump, 2017), only makes sense if non-white, non-Christians are seen as invaders. Thus, this implies that anyone in America who is non-white and non-Christian is a threat. Trump, by describing that being Western is the essence to the US’s identity, is defining the US to be in opposition to many of its own people.

In truth, its history dates back as far as the sixteenth century, following the first great expansion of European capitalism, which resulted in slave trade, colonialism and neo-colonialism (Ezema, 2009). Throughout history, world powers have continually sought to perpetuate their way of life: from the philosophy and mythology of the Greeks, the political ideologies and linguistics of the Romans, and the art and architecture of the Italian Renaissance (Daghrir, 2013). Thus, it comes as no surprise that the aftermath of the post-war era, which saw the collapse of Soviet communism and the emergence of the United States as the sole hegemon, saw the aggressive spread of American ideals, values, and beliefs. Indeed, just as American goods flooded world markets in the post-World War II era; American culture now penetrates every continent through the aggressive development of mass communications, trade expansion and information technology.

Living in America, we are given the freedom to practice the faith of our choice, but at the same time it does not give us the right to violate our laws or to organize, finance or develop a group whose motives are to attack and destroy the country they claim to be a citizen of, while practicing that faith or religion. We are now in the midst of a movement where homegrown American jihad will be the destruction of the United States.

Some of the basic human rights we see as children of the United States are not guaranteed everywhere. One example of this would be the oppressing of children in Uganda. As more and more children were enslaved by the Lord’s Resistance Army, led by Joseph Kony, the Invisible Children was founded to raise awareness through their campaign of “Kony 2012.” After eight years of campaigning against the Lord’s Resistance Army, the Invisible Children posted a video titled “Kony 2012.” It began as an experiment, but with over 100 million views in only six days, the infamous Joseph Kony went from an obscure villain to world known criminal. The campaign reached its goal in April of 2012, when President Barack Obama announced that he would reignite the United State’s mission to help the African Union in stopping LRA violence.

As Mark Mazower notes in his Dark Continent text the tale of democracy in the twentieth century, was not one of, an inevitable victory, but rather one “of narrow squeaks and unexpected twists,”.( Preface, Kindle Location 116). This paper will examine important events of the era that factored into the ideological fight for supremacy. While also highlighting examples that show that Europeans largely have not always been incredibly enthusiastic about democracy.

Samuel Huntington sees an emerging world organized on the basis of "civilizations". Societies that share cultural affinities cooperate with each other and the efforts to force a society into another civilization will fail; countries gather around the leading States of their civilization. This description of the process of new structures of international relations that Huntington sees developing, leads him to consider that the greatest risks of violence and confrontation lie in the Westerns’ claims to universality, which are leading them to increasingly get into conflict with other civilizations, particularly Islam and China; local conflicts, especially between Muslims and non-Muslims, generate new alliances and lead to an escalation of violence, which will usually lead the dominant states to make an attempt to stop them.

Such a low-spirited analysis appears naturally from the progressive political tradition, to which Hobsbawm remains attached. Part of this is a disdain for the leading capitalist state, the United States, which is treated unsympathetically throughout, causing an insufficient understanding of why the `American way ' continues to have such an impact. A more fundamental aspect of this tradition is the view of the state as the natural focus of