Not a bad book, even though it came out of an interview on French TV about movies. I believe that Banks is right to say that there is an enormous inconsistency between what Americans profess to believe and the way they act. It is racial in nature, of course, but one of the things that he doesn't get is that immigrants to this country from elsewhere have fully accepted the prejudices of the natives. As a first generation American I understand this. His comments about television and its corrupting influence on the young is silly. ( )

This is an interesting analysis of some key elements in the American character: notably, the gap between what Americans believe that America is about, and what actually drives our nation. In examining that gap, the writer breaks out three colonial "American Dreams" - the City on the Hill of the Puritans, the City of Gold of the Conquistadors, and the Fountain of Youth of Ponce de Leon. In his formulation these stand for the religious impulse, the lure of money, and the desire for self reinvention. In the deep divide between religious impulses, which tend to lead us to present national policy as a series of highly moral choices, and the drive for economic control which actually motivates policy, Banks sees a profound American hypocrisy.

Some of Banks' conclusions seem to me to go too far, particularly this one. First, I think that Banks overgeneralizes about Americans. The religious patriotism he castigates is certainly held by many, particularly away from the coasts, away from the universities, and away from areas with big non-white populations. But those "away froms" characterize a larger and larger share of the population. Second, I think he undergeneralizes about the tendency to view national policy through the lens of a quasi religious patriotism. Britain didn't conquer an empire to benefit British trade, it did it to spread religion and decency. France did not do the same in order to benefit French bankers, it did so to spread culture. We are not alone. Finally, one of Banks' final broadsides -- against television -- seems even more misplaced now than when it was written. Children don't spend three hours a day watching television, they spend many more hours on line, doing a lot more than passive watching.

All in all, this is a thought provoking book, if one which is somewhat limited by its genesis as a talk. That prevents some of the historical referencing I'm sure Mr. Banks could provide, which would reinforce his conclusions. ( )

A perceptive, provocative take on U.S. history and national identity by a non-historian. ( )

Well, I picked up this one for all the wrong reasons. William Carlos Williams’ In The American Grain remains in my mind (ingrained?) as a book that lays bare the very soul of what America means. I thought this might be something like that. But this book is slight in thickness as well as slight of thought. It’s really a throw away. Or an after thought. And why not? It really has its genesis in a French documentary that means to discover America through it movies. And Banks was chosen as a talking head for the film. What has been published here is more or less a glorified transcript of thoughts from the film. Perhaps they were more meaningful interspersed with vintage cinema. Standing alone here though, it’s a hodgepodge of meandering ruminations, none of which probe very deeply. All of which are more fully developed in any good magazine article about who we are, and where we are going. ( )