By all accounts, the address made the Soviets, themselves as equally unnerved by the CMC standoff, sit up and take notice -- in particular his opposite number at the time, Soviet General Secretary, Nikita Khrushchev. 'You have our full attention Mr President' appeared to be the general vibe from the Kremlin gremlins. Even Cuban president Fidel Castro -- from whom folks within JFK's own administration had spent no small amount of ingenuity and effort trying to relieve of the burdens of power -- was reportedly impressed!
However -- and this is a big "however", maybe the Modern American
Narrative's biggest -- unbeknown to him and almost all of his
closest, most trusted aides, advisors and confidantes, Kennedy's
days were numbered. Certain forces had their own ideas of Pax Americana, and as history
tells us they were determined for their own reasons to deny the
president the opportunity to put 'meat on the skeleton' of the Grand Pax he articulated at AU.
As is necessary when considering such weighty matters, a detour down 'memory lane' is appropriate here. The concept of Pax Americana ('American peace') is derived from similar abstractions integral to the understanding of the history and psychopathology of empires from Rome (Pax Romana) to the UK (Pax Britannica). Pax Americana (or Romana, Britannica etc.) refers to halcyon-like periods of relative peace achieved by these respective empires as a result of their hegemony.
Although derived from these earlier historical versions, the American iteration is in many ways unique, and it has changed somewhat since the phrase was first used. Moreover, it is not entirely unrelated to other uniquely American constructs essential to gaining a more useful insight into this country's character and its development as a nation and its own peculiar psychopathology.
To underscore this, the following might be instructive. In the third century AD, the Romans defined a concept called 'romanitas', which referenced the collective political concepts, humanist precepts, social constructs and cultural practices by which the Romans distinguished themselves. Latter day historians sometimes use this term as shorthand for what it means to be 'Roman' in terms of 'national' identity, uniqueness and sense of self.
According to historian Greg Woolf, the Romans saw their identity as based on being part of a political, social, cultural and religious community with common ethical values, customs, ideals, morality and [a] particular way of life or of looking at life. Some readers may already suspect where this is going, to wit: In analogous reference to America today, we might contrive the term 'americanitas', which for some may sound suspiciously like an unwelcome affliction of sorts, and an equally unwelcome metaphor.
(That it may be "unwelcome" because of the frequency with which the fall of the Roman empire and the reasons for it are evidenced as a pointer to the destiny of the American empire is a valid and enticing consideration surely, but one we might reserve for another time.)
Interestingly, the origin of the term was actually non-Roman, indeed anti-Roman. It derived from a pejorative description by the Carthaginian Christian theologian and writer Tertullian of those of his fellow citizens who were in his view, too much in thrall to Roman culture and to the Empire, to the point of emulating its customs, values and beliefs at the expense of -- or in denial of -- their own. This of course invites discussion of those
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
1
