American History

Paul Schroeder (1927-2020) was one of the leading American historians. Initially trained as a Lutheran minister, he taught history at the University of Illinois for more than 30 years. He specialised in modern history and the relationship between states. A self-described conservative, he was willing to challenge orthodox views (such as the reasons for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941) and became more open to radical ideas as he got older. He took an increasingly critical view of America and American foreign policy.

His view of the US was that from the early 19th century it became “the most bellicose, aggressive and imperialist state in the world”. What is happening now has very deep roots. His view of what caused World War One was succinct: “World War One was a normal development in international relations… events had been building towards it for a long time.” In contrast to that inevitability of war was his view that: “a lasting peace can only be one that keeps changing and adapting to new demands for justice.”

Schroeder had the bravery to write a month after the 9/11 Al Qaeda attacks on the US: “the terrorists attacked us here because we are there.” This was his opinion on the US invasion of Iraq: “A campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein by armed force would be an unjust, aggressive, imperialist war… negative, potentially disastrous effects… not merely foolish and dangerous, but wrong.” Those words were written six months before the invasion in March 2003. In June 2004 he wrote about some of the invasion’s consequences: “a Gulag Archipelago of detention camps and interrogation centres over the Middle East and Central Asia… this supremely ugly scandal.”

In 2007 Schroeder wrote: “It is a painful, disillusioned reflection from someone long convinced that the American public was by and large growing up and changing for the better… who now, near the end of his career and life, grows less confident of that maturity.” A year later: “the disastrous heritage of five years of scandal, crime, humiliation and destruction in Iraq, and the legacy of the neglect of Palestinians and other issues.” Reasons for this: “a national deficit in intellectual and moral courage.” In 2012 Schroeder wrote about the US policy in the 19th century: “marked by aggressive war, treaty violations, ethnic cleansing, coercive diplomacy and widespread organised and spontaneous violence.” Sounds like now…

In 2015 he stated that the US difficulties included: “the exceptionalism so deeply rooted in America’s history, institutions and popular culture, especially in its current debased and dangerous form… extraordinary provincialism, self-preoccupation and superficiality this entails in world affairs.”

The facts are straightforward: the US has been at war in nearly every year since its formation in 1776. The US is built on expropriation (of the lands of Native Americans), genocide (of Native Americans), slavery (such as the millions transported across the Atlantic), brutal state and corporate violence (such as against the labour movement in the early 20th century). The truth is that all empires – such as this American version – fall. The question is how much damage happens during their inevitable collapse. These are times of – to quote another historian from American, Barbara Tuchman (1912-1989) – “the bellicose frivolity of senile empires”. The US is a rogue state. From Hawaii, Liberia and Mexico in the 19th century; to Grenada, Haiti and Vietnam in the 20th century; to Afghanistan, Iraq and Venezuela in the 21st century – the countries might change yet the songs are similar. 

What is remarkable about the current US President is his blatant delinquency, his malign nature, his disregard for truth (such as his numerous delusional statements) and that he is somewhat deranged. It is obvious that he only cares about revenge, money and fame. His antics are both a deliberate confusion and a conscious distraction. However, the policies are less an aberration, more a continuation. To be clear: Trump is not the disease, he is a symptom.

(This article was greatly informed by my reading of Perry Anderson’s ‘Disputing Disaster: A Sextet on the Great War’).