| 
                           
              Americans: 
                 Ever Forgetful and Free 
               
                            If  you had to find the “Every-American,” someone who represented all the tics and  traits of our national character, you wouldn’t want to waste you time on  Esuyawkal Bimrew.  Not yet, anyway.  Edgy, over-eager, ever smiling—already the  twenty-six year old immigrant from Ethiopia embodies some cherished clichés of  the nation’s mythic personality.  Though  well educated by African standards, he jumped at the chance to leave family behind  and seek his future in America.  He  landed a cashier’s job in a mini-mart—getting off at 2 a.m. every day, just  hours before a morning class at Community College.1  
                              For Esuyawkal, the  American dream is no irony.  He doesn’t  swagger, but he seems to believe a little too much in himself.  He also believes in hard work and the idea  that America promises the good life for those who struggle.  His thickly accented speech becomes even  more garbled when he’s excited—but still conveys enough passion to convince  anybody he’s as American as the next guy.   But, when he starts talking about home, family, and all the warm  memories of the life left behind, he outs himself.  To become a real American, Esuyawkal will need to forget all  that.   
               Deep memory is  simply out of bounds in America.  It’s  the void that defines us.  Just as  certain memories shape a personality in fairly predictable ways, so too the  absence of memory forges a particular kind of character.  Make that absence a cultural policy and you  get Americans. 
                And cultural  policy it is.  Like no other nation, we  have made self-invention the centerpiece of a national creed.  But self-invention requires the belief that  we have not already been shaped by a past invented by others.  So Americans dismiss the notion that history  is a window into the self.  Instead, we  adopt a tactical amnesia, wiping the slate clean of origins so that we may be  the authors of our own identity.   Our  magnificent ambiguity, all the ugliness and beauty that twine in Americans, we  owe to this amnesia. 
               From  the outset, Americans have understood that forgetting was an indispensable step  in bringing the new nation into being.   In the Eighteenth century, the French immigrant J. Hector St. Jean De  Crevecoeur wrote that an American was someone who leaves behind “all his  ancient prejudices and manners, [and] receives new ones from the new mode of  life he has embraced.”2  For writers of the early republic,  reinventing one’s self was a political imperative, essential for subordinating  divisive European tribal loyalties to the new America.   
               But the lure of  self-invention has never been just political; it intoxicates because it  promises personal liberation.  Jay  Gatsby would not have been nearly so great had he not been so driven to  escape his childhood, his home, his father, and even his own name.  For Gatsby, freedom from the past was the  power to become something commensurate with his own lustful dreams 
               Even the memories  we do permit valorize forgetting.  The  past we honor is not the accumulation of experiences that sculpt a common sensibility  or stylize an approach to life.  What we  remember is generation after generation looking to the future, to the new, to us.  Our mythology begins with the immigrant’s  struggle—but not because the experience of survival teaches us something about  the art of life; we affirm the journey because it reminds us there’s always an  arrival, a future worth the effort.  The  most we remember of life aboard the Arbella is John Winthrop’s vision of the  shinning city on a hill they were to build once ashore.   
              Our famous  optimism, then, is more a function than a disposition. Americans learn early  that success is the past’s only legitimate lesson.  To remember failure, moments when progress was checked or  fortunes reversed, is paralysis.   Contrast the “mature” cultures.   People shaped by a finely tuned awareness of their own turbulent history  tend to make a fetish of sobriety.   Survival, not adventure, shapes their imagination.  And survival argues for caution,  tried-and-true methods—or doing nothing.   
              Amnesia, however,  is liberating.  It frees us to be brash  by disarming the key component of wisdom.   “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” said FDR, leading us out of  crisis; “fools rush in where wise men fear to go” sang Ricky Nelson, prodding  us into grief.  Without memory to retard  us, success in anything depends only on vigorous effort.  Acting, working, striving—simply  trying—becomes our most important value.   Tell us “Just Do It!” and we know exactly what you mean: don’t  over-think, just push and push and push until the thing (anything) is  done. 
               So  we’re pushy—an obnoxious, willfully ignorant, kind of pushy.  What makes us so damn galling is not just  that we don’t know stuff, but that we seem to take pride in not knowing.  The wise will always forgive ignorance so  long as it’s coupled with humility, a willingness to be taught.  But for Americans, humility looks too much  like servility. 
               Still, we are a  smiley people.  We seem to think  everybody loves us.  Viewed  suspiciously, the smile could be a gimmick, an enabling gesture: phony smiles  strive to disarm without confronting whatever ill will threatens to get in the  way.  Perhaps we smile to signal our  perpetual readiness to leave the past behind, roll up our sleeves and get  started on whatever needs doing.  Every  first meeting, we believe, every fresh handshake is invested with a boundless  potential for friendship and good. 
               But the smile  wouldn’t be so convincing if it weren’t also sincere.  Being happy is another cultural policy.  Mostly, we just don’t see a good reason to be unhappy.  This, too, is amnesia.  In the same way that memory enables wisdom  by schooling us in the ways the ancients thought through timeless problems, it also  compels people to wrestle with all that is tragic in life.  Not surprisingly, one of the venerable  truths of American culture is that it lacks a tragic sense of life.   
                Of course, it almost wasn’t true.  Our one shot at gaining a tragic sensibility  came with The Civil War: the industrialized slaughter of six hundred thousand  brothers, the sad, lonely, brooding presence of victorious but ill-fated  Lincoln, the corpse-like poses of Mathew Brady’s imagery.  The Civil War cut a deep gash in the  American psyche.  In the thick of it,  the usually optimistic Whitman confessed, “A thick gloom fell through the  sunshine and darken’d me.”3  
               But the gloom didn’t last long.  Not that the scar ever really healed; we  just numbed the pain with happier thoughts.   Rather than letting the war teach us that good and evil are codependents  lodged permanently within the human heart, we hammered our troubled memories  into something more glossy and inspirational—the familiar faith that, with  courage and sacrifice, good will always triumph.  It was a better fit for Americans: “trampling out the vintage  where the grapes of wrath are stored” is just what we do. 
               No wonder the rest of the world thinks us  self-righteous—and supremely arrogant.   They see it everywhere, from the clichéd camera-toting tourist shoving  “natives” around like props, to smug political leaders justifying war on the  basis of our historic duty to free other nations from the worst in  themselves.  Why, they wonder, do  Americans think they’re so much better than others?  
               The irony is that, strictly speaking, Americans  don’t think they’re better at all.   Self-righteous, yes—but better, no.   It’s a subtle point, often lost on others—especially people whose own  sense of national identity is shaped by memory.  Those cultures tend to believe their identity is something  stamped on them by time—that they have inherited the qualities and character  bred into the tribe through centuries of common experience.  Their “history” is gauzy memories of the  primordial or divine forces that supposedly forged their clan into a unique—and  usually better—form of human.  
               In the nineteenth century Americans flirted with  similar nonsense, but it never took hold.   The lore of pioneers and cowboys that Frederick Jackson Turner dressed  up in pseudo-science celebrated rowdies and primitives (a race of children),  not advanced culture or superior breeding.   And whatever they thought on the side, there’s not an ounce of eugenics  in the words of Jefferson or Lincoln we’ve chosen to canonize.   Instead, Americans believe we came into  being with the stroke of a pen.  Our  myth of origins has us forged by visionary language, abstract values such as  freedom, equality and pluralism—words we embrace as the iconic seeds of  character.  That’s the paradox of our  self-righteousness.  We hold sacred the  belief that nobody is better than anybody else—and that makes us pretty  special, doesn’t it? 
              So, indeed, we are “ugly Americans.”  And that’s an insult we take some pride  in.  Ugliness authenticates us—we know  it’s the world’s way of acknowledging that we’re animated by a truly noble  creed, one that transforms character into a mission: the belief that  self-creation is a birthright, and amnesia—freedom from the past—the surest way  to claim it.   
               
                
              
                
                  1 Esuyawkal  Bimrew is a fictitious name (drawn from actual family names) of a student in  Los Angeles, California.  Other  references to him are authentic. 
                 
                
                  2 Crevecoeur, J.  Hector St John De.  1999.  “Letters from an American Farmer.”  The Norton Anthology of American  Literature, Fifth Edition Shorter.   Eds. Baym et al. New York: Norton, (p 295).  
                 
                
                  3 Whitman,  Walt.  “Year That Trembled And Reel’d  Beneath Me.”  Leaves of Grass. New York: Penguin, 1980. p 252. 
                 
               
               
                
               |