Description

Introduction: Essayists deconstruct falsehoods that have become rallying cries for the right-wing in America.

Kevin Kruze and Julian Zelizer’s book, ‘Myth America,’ dissects several misleading but widely circulated narratives, such as the misconception that ‘America does not engage in empire building,’ the portrayal of ‘socialism as a new and foreign threat,’ the unfounded belief that ‘feminists aim to dismantle the ideal nuclear, heterosexual family,’ and the baseless fear that ‘waves of nonwhite immigrants will dilute our nation.’ In an era where anyone can claim expertise and social media facilitates rapid audience growth, the authors stress the importance of discerning facts from propaganda.

In this overview, we will spotlight some of the most influential and detrimental narratives explored in ‘Myth America,’ elucidating how and why they have gained prominence in an increasingly divided America.

Chapter One: The narrative of America is entwined with myths and alternative narratives.

“What stories truly encapsulate the essence of the American experience? Every nation weaves a narrative, a compelling saga of its inception and evolution. The American tale holds a distinct place due to the nation’s global impact and its role as a torchbearer for democracy.

However, in a country increasingly fractured and where the narrative has been co-opted by the political right, distinguishing fact from fiction has grown more challenging. In this age of unprecedented communication channels, anyone can assert themselves as an authority. Consider the non-historians vehemently opposing ‘revisionist history’ that exposes indisputable truths about slavery and the enduring legacy of systemic racism.

Take, for example, the arrival of European settlers. Their entire venture was steeped in legends of destiny, mirroring biblical tales of chosen people destined to inherit sacred lands. This narrative propelled their arrival and unrelenting expansion. Any collateral damage inflicted on their quest to create America was rationalized under the banner of ‘American exceptionalism.’ Newt Gingrich wielded this concept as a political weapon during his 1994 election campaign, crystallizing the notion of America as an ideal—a sentiment echoed by slogans like Trump’s ‘Make America Great.’

These origin stories, however, conveniently omit a crucial fact: they could not ‘discover’ a continent already inhabited for millennia by its indigenous peoples. Yet, some have attempted to deny this fact, as evidenced by Rick Santorum’s 2021 speech for the Young America’s Foundation, where he inaccurately claimed that Europeans encountered a ‘blank slate’ with ‘nothing here.’ The myth of the ‘vanishing Indian’ has persisted for centuries, reinforcing the belief that native civilizations should yield to a supposedly superior European culture. Pseudoscientists like Josiah Nott, an Alabama physician, furthered such claims, asserting that Native Americans were a distinct, unchanging race destined for eventual extinction.

These creation myths lay the foundation for misleading alternative narratives, readily exploited as tools of discrimination and suppression, particularly by those who stand to benefit from them.”

Chapter Two: The fabrication of nonwhite immigrants overwhelming America is intended to instill panic.

“They continue to arrive.” This chilling narrative often circulates about the influx of foreign immigrants with darker skin tones crossing the southern border, supposedly posing a threat to America. This enduring myth has played a role in disenfranchising various waves of immigrants throughout history. It not only serves as a rallying cry for those advocating immigration restrictions but also provides a rationalization for racism and discrimination against those already residing in the country. It is not a new concept.

Benjamin Franklin expressed concerns about the influx of Germans into Pennsylvania. Later, Protestant colonists fretted over Catholic and Irish “invasions.” Similar discriminatory treatment was applied to other groups deemed “inferior” immigrants, including “swarthy” southern and central Europeans, Jewish individuals, Russians, and Asians. In 1924, Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act, which established quotas based on national origin, aimed at keeping out these European immigrants perceived as inferior to Anglo-Saxons.

However, the undeniable truth remains that throughout history and in the present, America relies on and actively seeks immigrant labor, though it often fails to provide a warm welcome and equal participation. In the 1800s, Chinese laborers were actively recruited for railroad, farm, and factory work. Yet, when the demand for their labor diminished, they were no longer welcomed, and the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. This legislation not only encouraged violence against them but also prevented them from establishing families and communities in America.

A similar demand for labor prompted waves of at least half a million Mexicans to migrate to the United States between 1900 and 1930. Unlike the Chinese, many in this group already had deep familial ties to the land, spanning generations before the founding of America. Their entry was tacitly encouraged, with border patrols often turning a blind eye. Simultaneously, anti-immigrant rhetoric sought to portray them as inferior to white immigrants, implying that they would dilute the “white nature” of America and making it difficult for them to obtain citizenship.

The “they keep coming” myth gained prominence during the Trump presidency when it was used to label various groups, including Muslims and Chinese, who were wrongly blamed for terrorism and COVID, respectively. This myth has transformed into a weapon wielded by isolationists and white supremacists, all those who stand to gain from perpetuating a culture of “otherization.”

Chapter Three: Through assistance, diplomacy, and military interventions, America has consistently acted as an empire.

Consider this fact: Over the past 75 years, there have been only two years, specifically 1977 and 1979, when U.S. forces were neither engaged in military invasions nor involved in conflicts in foreign nations.

Despite the United States being regarded as a leader among modern, civilized nations that collectively agree that the practice of occupying other countries is no longer acceptable, certain aspects of American governance cast doubt on this notion. The presence of American territories like Puerto Rico and Guam, coupled with the existence of 750 U.S. military bases spanning from Japan to Saudi Arabia, challenge this perception and make it easy to dispel the myth that America does not possess imperial qualities.

An illustrative case in point is the situation in Guatemala during the 1950s. In 1950, the democratically elected Guatemalan president, Jacobo Árbenz, initiated a land reform campaign aimed at distributing land ownership more equitably among the country’s citizens. This move posed a threat to influential landowners, including the United Fruit Company, a conglomerate based in the United States. The U.S. provided support and arms to Carlos Castillo Armas, a Guatemalan lieutenant colonel who had received training in Kansas, enabling him to orchestrate a coup. Armas assumed the presidency, imprisoned his opponents, and returned the land to the United Fruit Company, resulting in the loss of an elected leader for Guatemala.

There are at least 64 documented instances during the Cold War era where the United States either ousted a foreign leader or contested an election in another country. These efforts succeeded on 25 occasions. In a majority of these cases, such as Iran and Chile, the United States supported authoritarian puppet regimes. In exchange for providing arms, financial aid, and training to various forces worldwide, the U.S. expected recipients to reciprocate with expressions of gratitude and support.

Not all U.S. interventions take a military form, but aid of any kind often carries implicit expectations. Post-World War II Europe, for instance, received substantial financial assistance through initiatives like the Marshall Plan, but this aid came with an unspoken, and at times explicit, understanding that European nations should open their borders to American trade, sever ties with communist bloc countries, and curb leftist or union movements.

Perhaps former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau captured this dynamic most aptly when he likened living with America to “sleeping with an elephant.” Regardless of the elephant’s friendly and even-tempered demeanor, its every movement and sound profoundly affects those around it. While the United States may officially be a republic, its global dominance in language, currency, pop culture, and politics undeniably characterizes it as an empire.

Chapter Four: The world’s foremost capitalist nation has always harbored a strand of socialism within its fabric.

In his 2019 State of the Union address, Donald Trump emphatically declared to Congress, “America will never be a socialist country.” This sentiment resonated with many of his supporters who harbored a deep aversion to the term “socialism,” considering it a novel and foreign threat to American core values.

However, fast-forwarding just two centuries before Trump’s address, another individual stood before Congress to discuss the perils of an exclusively capitalist society. This individual argued that such a system, one that concentrates “wealth and power in the hands of a few,” inevitably leads to “poverty and subjugation” for the masses. This proponent of these views was Robert Owen, a prosperous Welsh industrialist who would go on to coin the term “socialism.” Despite being a foreigner in America, his ideas were not met with scorn but rather received respect and, to some extent, agreement.

As much as contemporary conservatives may view socialism as a contemporary threat to American values, this philosophical strand has coexisted with a spectrum of political ideologies in the country almost since its inception. Even in traditionally conservative states like Oklahoma, in the year 1912, one-sixth of voters threw their support behind union leader Eugene Debs when he ran for the presidency as a Socialist Party candidate. This support stemmed in part from the fact that many Oklahomans were small-scale farmers, and the Socialist Party proposed a plan that included, among other things, the elimination of property taxes on farms valued at less than $1,000. During the Great Depression, American communists mobilized people to advocate for assistance and union formation, contributing to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s push for the New Deal.

Various groups have reaped the benefits of policies initiated or championed by socialists, encompassing areas such as Medicare, minimum wage laws, civil rights, and women’s suffrage. Prominent Americans respected across the political spectrum, including figures like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Orson Welles, and Woody Guthrie, have expressed support for socialism and its implications. This sentiment extended to Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Despite encountering resistance, socialists have achieved notable successes since the 2008 recession – consider the considerable progress made by Bernie Sanders in presidential races. In the 2020 election, 101 members of the Democratic Socialists of America, a group founded in 1982, were elected to public office.

Much like their historical roles in advancing women’s and workers’ rights, contemporary American socialists are actively advocating for causes such as universal Medicare and renewable energy, all with the aim of benefiting every American.

Chapter Five: An untrue portrayal of the Lost Cause sustains racism in the Southern United States.

In recent years, an age-old rallying cry has gained momentum: the call to remove Confederate flags, statues, and memorials due to their association with a racist, slave-owning past. However, supporters of Confederate monuments often argue, “It’s just a statue, and it’s history!”

The reality is that a statue rarely serves as mere art, and the “history” these memorials represent is far from an accurate reflection of the American South. Instead, it perpetuates the myth of the Lost Cause, a narrative that drew defiant Southerners together following their defeat in the Civil War.

This myth constructed a false story of a glorious land whose noble cause was unjustly crushed by a domineering North, infringing upon states’ rights. By glossing over the issue of slavery and the post-slavery treatment of Black Americans, the Lost Cause myth allowed white Southerners to bask in a nostalgic vision of an idealized culture that never truly existed.

The propagation of this myth began almost immediately after the Civil War, with the construction of Confederate memorials and a series of ceremonies dedicated to unveiling or honoring these statues. These events featured speeches and dedications by ardent supporters and Confederate veterans. These organizers and orators often linked the Lost Cause to the American Revolution, further weaving into the narrative the idea of a North that had betrayed the principles of the Founding Fathers.

As the myth rapidly spread throughout the South, the situation for Black Americans correspondingly deteriorated. Their voting rights were stripped, and the nation grappled with lynchings and escalating racial tensions. White women played a significant role in these shifts, with the United Daughters of the Confederacy, for instance, growing from 30 members in 1894 to 100,000 by 1914. These organizations were instrumental in the creation and dedication of monuments and statues. Through such events, they solidified their argument that, rather than being people who lost a war because they insisted on enslaving others, they had been unjustly overpowered by those who threatened a way of life grounded in American principles.

In response, Black writers, politicians, and activists decried the implicit approval of such statues and exposed the hollow core of the argument, demanding the removal of flags and statues. This narrative expanded to incorporate anti-immigrant sentiments, particularly during the 1990s and especially after the events of 9/11. Supporters of the Lost Cause remained resolute in their alternative narrative, perpetuating a legacy deeply intertwined with a distorted view of history and racial injustice.

Chapter Six: Instead of opposing the American family, feminists aim to fortify it.

The irony in the battle waged by anti-feminists like Phyllis Schlafly is palpable: despite their claims that women advocating for their rights were undermining the American family, it becomes evident that, in nearly every instance, feminists’ pursuit of self-determination only serves to fortify families.

Consider Planned Parenthood, the organization often targeted by Schlafly and her followers when making their arguments. Its founder, Margaret Sanger, established it as the American Birth Control League in 1921 with the intention of assisting families in becoming stronger through the responsible planning and control of their births and bodies. Sanger’s motivation was deeply personal, having raised eleven children herself and witnessed her own mother endure seven miscarriages.

For her efforts in disseminating information about contraceptives, Sanger faced opposition and even arrests. Nevertheless, over time, she garnered thoughtful support from individuals across the political spectrum. Even Republican Dwight Eisenhower served as an honorary chair of Planned Parenthood in 1964. Conservative politicians and prominent evangelists like Billy Graham expressed approval for birth control.

However, the cause of women’s autonomy encountered resistance when confronted with opposition to abortion and more liberal interpretations of family structures. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade ruling in favor of abortion rights faced opposition, partly driven by the belief that it threatened the American family. Support for nuclear, patriarchal families found backing from various quarters, including some liberal Democrats. Even Betty Friedan, a leader of the National Organization for Women, opposed extending familial rights to lesbian couples and their families.

The conservative ideal of a tidy, white, Christian, heterosexual nuclear family belied the diverse realities that have always existed in America, from multigenerational immigrant households to matriarchal Black families. Gay families, blended families, and single-parent households have always been part of the American fabric, sometimes hidden but increasingly visible. This visibility fueled the lamentations of conservatives who felt an era was coming to an end.

In response, feminist movements have evolved to be more intersectional as women engage in the struggle to protect families from a variety of perspectives. One can observe this in the activism of groups like Moms Demand Action, who work to combat gun violence. Today, being a feminist no longer necessitates being a mother, but the work they undertake undeniably contributes to strengthening American families in all their diversity and complexity.

 

Conclusion

The narrative of America comprises numerous strands, yet some of these threads consist of misleading stories that have garnered momentum, aligning with a far-right agenda. In an age where anyone can find an audience and assert themselves as an authority, where the concept of truth has become increasingly subjective, it becomes imperative to comprehend and deconstruct the most detrimental of these myths.

About the authors

Kevin M. Kruze is a distinguished historian, a professor at Princeton University, and a renowned author. Among his notable works are ‘White Flight’ and ‘One Nation Under God’.

Julian E. Zelizer, a prominent figure in academia and the media, serves as a professor at Princeton University, a political analyst for CNN, and an accomplished author. He has penned 24 books on American political history, including notable titles such as ‘The Fierce Urgency of Now,’ ‘Governing America,’ and ‘Burning Down the House’.

Buy Book on Amazon