One cultural trend I've noticed over the years is how many Americans, especially on the neoconservative right(though not exclusively) genuinely seem to view American history through the lens of the plucky underdog fighting against overwhelming odds. Which is a rather odd interpretation of history, if you ignore the small detail that the United States was usually the side with more resources, more money, better logistics or some combination of all three.
Take the Revolutionary War, probably the most commonly cited example. Yes, the Continental Army was fighting the British Empire. But the Americans were financed and materially supported by France and later Spain, while Britain was simultaneously dealing with multiple conflicts across the globe. Calling this a straightforward case of a tiny, helpless underdog taking on an all-powerful empire leaves out a few inconvenient details.
Then there's WW2, where the American "underdog" narrative becomes even more impressive. The average American soldier was significantly better paid than soldiers in all other armies. An American private earned around $50 a month, compared with roughly $12 for a British private. An American sergeant could out-earn officers in some other countries. American troops were also extraordinarily well supplied, with vastly greater access to not just food, ammunition, equipment, transportation, but for ice-cream, thanksgiving Turkey and cigarettes
The sentiment in regards to the revolution was that it was a professional army that domination much of the world vs a smaller unprofessional fighting force.
As for WW2 it comes from being in multiple theatres, developed the atomic bomb while France and England were being pushed back by Germany
>>2892970Does this idea conflict with your feelings of big evil america oppressing smaller underdogs?
>>2892973No, I’m not a Western leftist. I know for a fact that a professional Army is required to defeat an imperialist power.
>>2892970>Take the Revolutionary War, probably the most commonly cited example. Yes, the Continental Army was fighting the British Empire. But the Americans were financed and materially supported by France and later Spain, while Britain was simultaneously dealing with multiple conflicts across the globe. Yeah geopolitically. On the tactical level it could get pretty gnarly. The Mel Gibson movie is awful politically but I've been reading a book about the American revolutionary war and some of the descriptions of individual battles actually read like this scene, like American continental troops going up against well-trained British regulars and getting waylaid.
But I think what you're talking about probably has more to do with some Protestant individualist capitalist culture thing. The "self-made man" and all that. It's how politicians so often try to say they're the plucky underdog against the establishment even if the politician we're talking about is a billionaire.
>>2892974It’s literally not, militias can do the job
Your daily reminder that America's first foreign military engagement was not against the Barbary pirates (white slavers, based) but rather supporting the Haitian slave revolt (uyghurs that genocided the white French, cringe)
>>2892970Christian persecution complex seems way more widespread. I guess on the right especially with Trump there's this idea that poor widdle America is being taken advantage of by its vassals and smart foreigners are taking advantage of our dumb politicians to get trade deals that screw us over. Not sure how far back that goes. There was that weird right panic in the 90s about U.N. black helicopters, the Amero, hobbit homes, stuff like that.
>>2892995>>2892975but you don't see this with Canada or other protestant states, just America
>>2892977And the UK did the same before that, for its own material interests. Former didn’t want the Bourbon monarchy and latter didn’t want the Bonapartist government emerging as a rival power to their dominance. A singular Haiti was simply better for their interests. it’s the same fucking shit they’d later pull in the Middle East, supporting morons who turn their own nations into shit holes because it serves their interests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_South >>2892999Canadians do all this shit too. Canadian nationalism is nothing more than seeing how fare up the asshole of the current Imperial Sugar Daddy one can put their tongue.
>>2892970>One cultural trend I've noticed over the years is how many Americans, especially on the neoconservative right(though not exclusively) genuinely seem to view American history through the lens of the plucky underdog fighting against overwhelming odds. Which is a rather odd interpretation of history, if you ignore the small detail that the United States was usually the side with more resources, more money, better logistics or some combination of all three.well yeah that's just how reactionary psychopaths generally operate. they create a two sided narrative that always benefits them. we are oppressed but also stronk. we are the victim but also we'll fuck you up. we are disadvantaged but we'll win anyway. people love an underdog story so when all you do is curb stomp babies to you have to falsely remember that they were orcs with chainsaws actually. israelis do the same thing. we had to bomb a million babies in gazan hospitals because they were scray hamas
>>2892976you can evict a counter insurgency operation but you can't really defeat the source of it
>>2893007Not really, because from what I’ve seen, this trend only started around the post-Reagan era. The Continental Army for e.g was the main focus in American history books, but that focus shifted entirely toward the minutemen sometime after the 70s.