Whitman opens the preface of Leaves of Grass with the line “America does not repel the past or what it has produced under its forms or amid other politics or the idea of casts or old religions.” (5) cites remembrance as a key factor in the poetic nature of the newly formed United States and is a beautifully written example of nationalistic pride, of which there are many throughout the preface. Using remembrance as a way to instill patriotism is affective, but dangerous as memory is often idealized and glorified. Whitman promotes the myths of America’s founding and those responsible, often producing these very myths by way of his patriotic rhetoric throughout Leaves of Grass. The tricky thing about memorializing those who started our nation is that all of the unsavory things that occurred do not get the same amount of attention, if any at all. One should not celebrate the founding of the United States without first recognizing the genocide and colonization of native peoples that occurred. One should not praise Thomas Jefferson without acknowledging the problematic relationship he has with his 16 year old slave Sally Hemings. This is where Whitman falls short, is fooled by and upholds these myths about American Exceptionalism. Whitman was massively influenced by American revolutionaries and was essentially the first major poet actively living and working in the newly, and almost fully formed America and indeed felt that connection to the place and its origin story. This largely affected his role in upholding the exceptional aspect of the American psyche. In hindsight and in our modern America it is easy to excuse this given Whitmans upbringing and major influence by the founding fathers, however it is just as easy to see that misremembering and turning a blind eye in the name of American Nationalism might just as well be a deeply American trait. This comes through, throughout Whitman’s works like Leaves of Grass and Song of Myself when Whitman assumes the role of an interpreter of the ways of our world and attempts to speak from personas and perspectives that are not his own. He does so in a problematic way attempting to cross racial and gendered lines to speak from the viewpoints of others regardless of never having held that perspective and passing it off as truth. Doing so minimizes the real experiences of those demographic and locks in potential facilities as fact in how to remember and think about those groups. Whitman had an incredible platform on which he helped foster the tenants of American exceptionalism and the pride that so many Americans have identified with and still do today. These problems arise in the retelling of our histories and how we grapple with addressing our countries shortcomings while not tainting that honor that has been so bolstered throughout American history. A contemporary example of this is the historical critique of the musical “Hamilton.” Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers, had an incredible story, that Lin Manuel Miranda masterfully put together in musical form, effectively capturing audiences and retelling an origin story that preceded that of our country’s. Historians offer a critique of this however, saying that the musical glorifies Hamilton and only focuses on his actions and political policies that would be seen as favorable by todays audiences and negating those that wouldn’t. I have mixed feelings about this aspect of Whitman and the myths of American history for this very reason of truth vs glory. There is much that we as Americans do have to celebrate and lots of validity in Whitmans claims about America as a structure, while there is also a lot to condemn. I am wondering how we strike that balance and accurately portray our country whilst still allowing for American exceptionalism.
Link to the New York Times article about “Hamilton” – “‘Hamilton’ and History: Are They In Sync?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/theater/hamilton-and-history-are-they-in-sync.html
Your point is well taken that Whitman undeniably honors American’s founding, and many of the myths that go along with it. At the same time, his vision is propulsive. In that opening, he states that he does not repel the past, but in the same paragraph, if we follow his train of thought, the past becomes a corpse borne out of the room to make was for the present and future. His relationship to the past is tricky in this way: his poetic vision relies on upholding some version of the American myth and the sense of exceptionalism it entails, but he also wants to re-make this myth, and continue the revolution. “Resist much, obey little” he writes in “To These States,” one of the inscription poems that leads Leaves of Grass.
This is all to say that Whitman does not always blindly uphold a rosy version of our past, and catalogue of ills on page that accompanies his defense of liberty suggest that he is well aware of all that threatens American’s future.
I think your two primary points here–about the dangers of nationalism and what it blinds us to, and the risk of taking on the experience of others as our own–are both good, but perhaps better dealt with as separate arguments tied more fully to moments in the preface and “Song of Myself” that would really give your argument here time to develop a bit.