It was recently pointed out to me, by a dual citizen family member, that America has a lot to be proud of. For example, they have by far the most number of nobel laureates, founded many of the most profitable companies in the world, created the internet, and has had worldwide influenced on how democracy should operate.
We’d been discussing a Canadian classic, how we’re different from America. My stance was an air of elitism over America, because of their lacking liveable safety net and free health care. He agreed, but was quick to list the aforementioned achievements of the US, and questioned if their pedigree was fueled by their winner-takes-all society? In other words, could America have achieved as much world influence or innovation with more socially equal policies?
YES
Maybe they’d have achieved even greater success?
Why is it that American’s are so quick to be proud of their world dominance, without acknowledging how they got there? Surely they’d soften their bravado if colonial era wrongdoings were at the forefront of their history lessons. Not to mention the luck involved to finish World War 2 at the top (of the world).
I argue that the amount of wealth generated by these two aspects of American history are far more consequential than their pro-wealth building policies.
Let’s consider previous epicenters of world influence & innovation. Europe, before the US, was undergoing a scientific revolution. Worldwide commerce and colonialism had far reaching influence. Worse than the US, it privileged only a few monarchs, by taking from the masses. Free time for the elites sparked innovations in science and mathematics that did change the world. Like Newtonian mechanics, which gave European militaries the ability to precisely calculate projectile motion. Before Europe’s enlightenment, it was east Asian behemoth’s of the middle ages like the Byzantine empire and the Islamic world.
Is it pro-wealth building policies, or accrued wealth that foster innovation and worldwide influence? It is understandable that many would answer “both”, but consider that throughout history, every nation state has had pro-wealth building policies. Yet, influence and innovation remained with the wealthy. Both Europe, and east Asia before them, had the money to hold power. Over time, that money is spent on the military to maintain power, until the money’s gone, and the power shifts.
The final piece of the puzzle is people. It’s not enough to simply have wealth, you also need a large marketplace to grow that wealth. The policies governing the massive marketplace do matter; monopolies are bad for the people, and capitalism has proven better than communism. But what I’m claiming is simply that wealth over wealth-generating policies leads to innovation and influence. Perhaps this is obvious, but if that is the case, why do American’s consistently claim to be the “greatest nation” because of their policies?
They should instead claim to be the greatest nation, because of the wealth they stole or lucked into
This is a hugely different mindset. (A majority of?) American’s believe they created their success out of sheer will power. They did not. Their stolen wealth, off the back of colonial thievery, and mid-century luck put them on a path to dominance. They should be humble about the fortune they find themselves with. Instead, there is an air of deservedness that stifles humility, and reduces their social appetite to support the have nots.
American’s should be proud of their country, and work hard to recognize their errors, and their luck. They should stop idealizing the individual without also appreciating their privileged environment, and how their (white male) riches came to be.