Mohammad Malak Philosophy 210 12/17/10 Philosophy Final The book Myths Americans Live By Richard T Hughes tackles

the subject of learning about Americas identity. When Hughes refers to myths, he does not mean myths in the sense of stories or legends. They myths he refers to are old ideals we as Americans hold to be a vital part of what sets us apart from the rest of the world. Although there might be a general consensus from our society that these myths are indeed the truth, Hughes reminds us thought his book that we can no longer be so self absorbed in our own culture, and must be self-aware as to how other nations perceive us. Hughes argues that knowing why a hostile nation is troubled with us would be the best in understanding differences and the best way to analyze ourselves. This is not to say myths are bad. They represent a concept of what it means to be American, each being built off each other and we can feel the affects of each myth in todays world. The biggest myth we Americans hold dear to is American Exceptionalism, or thinking of ourselves as gods chosen nation. Here Hughes argues this is the most powerful myth and I would have to agree. This myth started out way back to the beginning of Judaism, the Jewish people believe that they shared a direct link to god, in the form of a sacred pact. This idea of being in divine presence would eventually be planted deep into Calvinist ideology; Pilgrims now had the notion that they were superior to the indigenous natives, as they were considered to be godless and uncivilized. This is where Hughes points out the critical flaw in the chosen myth. He argues that while it is useful in the aspect that this belief creates a strong sense of nationalization and belonging to the society, it only

works in this sense for the people who fit the specific mold. Having a group of chosen people automatically creates a paradox with the American creed of all men being created as equals. What still seems odd to me is the way that other presidents try to rebranding the term American Exceptionalisim. The myth behind natures nation also suffers from the same problem as well. Although it is thought that the American government system was something completely new that the founding fathers had conjured up all by themselves, much of the credit goes to the British and French. The idea of Natures nation myth had emerged during the revolutionary period with deep roots in the European enlightenment (pg. 47). Hughes then goes on to explain the members of the founding fathers were deists, meaning their idea of God to them was one that is found in nature, like a divine presence. Natures law could be considered the simplest form of laws. Allowing each person the rights promised in the American creed itself; life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Which is good (pg. 47). But as Hughes points out, the problem isnt with the concept of natures nation; it lies in the world perspective of the people in power. The meaning of nature was being defined by heavily influenced and limited Eurocentric views, only understanding their version of nature by their own cultural traditions, by excluding women and non-white males from gaining rights. Unlike the first two, the myth that America is a Christian nation didnt seem like it affected the American creed, but more of influenced the moral views of the people to me. Is America actually a Christian nation or not? And what does it matter? When America was first set up with the ideas of separating church and state by the founding fathers, Hughes puts it into context on how this was a pretty controversial move in itself Hughes reasons

that the idea of a completely secular state was something drastically different then what the colonists were used to us, secularism is a normal thing, but to the colonists, this seemed like throwing away their new country to godless people or satanic cults. Despite not having a central religion, the puritans still managed to spread their religion due to being able to tell a more compelling story no other immigrant group could match (pg. 33). Charles Finnely lead the puritans to a second great awakening, calling back to traditional Christian values of using good actions and helping people to spread their religion (pg. 75). The programs that Finnely created ended up converting over to social programs. Hughes states this is where the second great awakening succeeds. Although the constitution itself doesnt allow any spread of religion. As a foreigner to this country, I always felt that America was indeed a Christian nation. But I learned from Hughes that eventually the churches began to take in helping the community, they adapted to Finnelys method by taking in common society values (pg. 76). By becoming a part of natural law. As you can probably start to tell, this where the myths start overlapping. For example, the Millennial Nation myth is really just Natures Nation, Gods Chosen and Christian Nation all wrapped up into one big vision (pg. 122). That America, is Gods Chosen nation that is supposed to liberate and enlighten the people of earth ushering in a golden age of mankind and we should unite under natural laws. All would be well. Except, as Hughes stated before, we see these terms in Eurocentric terms. This new world would be only following the American creed if you were a white Anglo-Saxon male. This arrogant rationality sadly would later go on to become manifest destiny. I dont want to even go into the Innocent Nation myth originating from past WWII sentiments of being the good guy, facing off against the axis of evil and fighting for freedom and justice. But the 60s brought

a generation of disillusioned youths, running away from Christianity and protesting for civil rights and the war (pg. 190) Hughes explains the idea as nave thinking hoping the world is always so neatly cut into good and bad. I agree with Hughes assessment that Innocent nation isnt really a myth. Although Hughes brought this point up numerous times during the reading, I did not really get a good idea of worldview perspective really meant until now. I have a better worldview outlook then most people, since I came from a different country that was pretty much polar opposites culture wise. As much as I agree with Hughes on changing perspectives, I wonder how one would go about doing such a thing. Things like the Innocence myth or the millennial myth seemed like poorly constructed rationalities, but I never really understood how things like Manifest Destiny was accepted by the general public, but to see the relations and the interconnectiveness of historical events can start off as one idea, and evolve into something new and different. I also thought it was interesting when Hughes started to explain how the church managed to integrate into the community. One of my problems with Hughes though is that even though it is good he decided to take on the underdog route throughout his book and showcase the perspective of American History la Howard Zinn style. Yet for all his talk of making the African American perspective his main focus of his book, Hughes really only brings up this viewpoint for less then half the book. The parts that are discussed, in my opinion, came off as very dry to read. When Hughes wrote for himself he had his own flair, but ended up tiptoeing around the African American voice, which is a shame really, as it was a good idea to include the struggle of the people who had to fight for their liberties as Hughes himself mentioned (Pg. 9).