The Uses of Patriotism...

From Fred On Everything:





In my daily snowstorm of email I find furious appeals to patriotism, usually addressed to large lists of recipients. The writers invoke The Founding Fathers, urge fealty, and counsel solidarity with all the whoop and holler of a camp meeting. I'm puzzled. Why is patriotism thought to be a virtue? It seems to me a scourge.

Judging by my mail, patriotism has little to do with a fondness for one's country. Yes, many Americans like America. They reflect affectionately on Arizona's painted deserts and the wooded hollows of Tennessee, on the music of Appalachia and New Orleans, the rude vigor and brashness of a remarkable people, the rich accents of Brooklyn and Mississippi, all the things that give a sense of home and attachment in a large world. But they do not want blood. They speak quietly. Apparently they are not patriots. They do not use the word.

The email patriots are different. They growl and threaten, and seem less to appreciate their country than to hate others. They remind me of nothing so much as bar-room drunks looking for a fight. Their letters seethe with bitterness and begin with denunciations of liberals and the communist media (by which they mean any that fail to agree with them). They don't eat French fries. They hate. They would make, and in fact did make, excellent Nazis.

The difference between patriotism and love of country seems to be the difference between an inward-looking fondness and an outward-looking hostility. The email patriots regard any disagreement as treachery and softness. To doubt the wisdom or necessity of a war, any war, is treason; any inclination to think for oneself is evidence of being in the enemy's camp.

This is everywhere the rule. There were Japanese who thought that attacking the United States was not a conspicuously bright idea. They were squelched by patriots. GIs loved duty in Tokyo.

Malignant patriotism explains the attack, by a large heavily armed industrial power, against a weak and bedraggled nation so helpless as to be conquered in weeks. I refer of course to the Nazi assault on Poland. The Wehrmacht, like the Imperial Japanese Army, was awash in patriotism. It is in large part why they fought so well. No emotion is more usefully manipulable by governments with misbehavior in mind.

The connections among patriotism, military service, Christianity, and morality are tangled and fascinating. The first two appear to me to be incompatible with the second two. Consider Heinz, a German youth joining his armed forces in, say, 1937. Enlisting was then, as now, a patriotic thing to do. Heinz was probably a decent sort. Most people are. He probably had little interest in Poland, a minor creation which posed no threat to Germany. He liked beer and girls.

Then, come September of 1939, he found himself butchering Poles. The war had nothing to do with defense. The German attack was savage, unprovoked, and murderous. And why was Heinz killing people he didn't know? Because his government told him it was his patriotic duty. Which is to say that being in the Wehrmacht meant forfeiting moral independence to a dark squatty effeminate Aryan blond superman. Oh good.

It is curious. If Heinz had decided to kill Poles as a free-lance, he would have been called a mass-murderer, hanged, and had a movie made about him. If as a soldier he had decided not to kill Poles, having no reason to kill them, he might have been shot as a mutineer. But when he killed them unreflectingly because he had been told to, he became a minor national hero and and, if extraordinarily effective in the killing, received a medal.

Fortunately for Adolph, refusals on moral grounds to kill the enemy, any enemy, are rare. In human affairs, morality is more than window-dressing, but not much more. Lust, hormones, and the pack instinct take easy precedence. Thus armies seldom say en masse, "No. We think it the wrong thing to do."

When the war goes badly, patriotism becomes compulsory. Heinz, driving toward Stalingrad, did not have the choice of changing his mind. Deserters tend to be shot. Enormous moral suasion serves to quell reluctance to die. Going against the herd is unpleasant. Governments understand this well.

Patriotism often needs propping, and gets it. Conscription serves to make fight those who otherwise wouldn't. (The ancient Persians used whips to force unwilling soldiers to go forward. Firing squads work as well, and do not tire the arm.) Societies punish draft-dodgers, except in the case of Republican presidents, and revile conscientious objectors as cowards, traitors, and homosexuals. Deserters particularly suffer heavy punishment, because if soldiers in a long nasty war could escape without penalty, most would.

Heinz, being German, was probably a Christian. Soldiers often believe themselves to be Christians. There is remarkably little in the New Testament to encourage aggressive slaughter, yet Christian countries have regularly attacked everybody within reach. (So of course have most other countries.)

Heinz cannot serve two masters. Either he puts the authority of religion above that of government, or he kills anyone he is told to kill. As a rule he compartmentalizes, accepts official justifications, and obeys.

Why does a coalition of Christian nations send troops at great expense to the Middle East to attack a Moslem nation offering no threat? I refer of course to the Crusades. The answer is simple: Humankind has a profound instinct to form warring groups. Crips and Bloods, Redskins and Cowboys, Catholics and Protestants, liberals and conservatives. Because a thin veneer of reason floats like pond scum on our instincts, we invent tolerable rationalizations: We must take the Holy Lands from the infidels. God says so.

In Chicago, young males form nations, which they call by such names as the Vice Lords, the P Stones, the Black Gangster Disciples. They have ministers, pomp and circumstance, hierarchy, and intense loyalty to the gang. They wear uniforms of sorts-hats with bills pointed to the left or right, chosen colors-and they fight for turf, which is empire measured in blocks. The gangs of Chicago are international relations writ small.

Patriotism is most dangerous when mixed with religion. Both give high purpose to low behavior. Worst are the fundamentalists, the Ayatollahs and born-agains, the various Christian Wahabis and Islamic Cromwells. A fundamentalist believes that any idea wandering into his mind comes from On High. Actually he is making it up. He confuses himself with God, which is not a good thing when he is a bit loony to begin with. Fundamentalists usually are.

Usually wrong, but unfamiliar with doubt. I can't think of a better ground for policy.

Fred of FredOnEverything.net is my favorite columnist, and a frickin' genius as far as I'm concerned. You all should give him a visit (though I'm sure all the super patriots will hate him) *cough*

Every nation has a small group of people who are willing to preserve their way of life. By direct interaction represented with selfless zeal(not fanacticism). These are the true Patriots, people who listen to the voice of those around them and act in accourdence. If your way of life is being infringed upon,(if it's a accepted way) these are the people who stand up first. Patriots are those who have no second thought on makeing the right decision, for at the center of every true patriots being is the urge for fulfilment of truth.

He's not a genius. He's just trying to define patriotism as he sees it.

Patriotism is NOTHING but the love for the Land that raised you.

Where you take it from there is up to you. It's YOUR definition.

Wow, those few examples have convinced me, patriotism is BAD!!

Yeah, whatever.

On a more realistic level, I, too, get sick of my email being clogged up with those flag-waving pieces of drivel that usually end with something to the effect " Email this to everyone you know or you are a pinko-commie!"

Another thing I'm tired of is the outdoing of one another with the eagle decals, these flags that clip onto the windows (tattered and torn, yet not replaced by the "patriot" and the rear window displays of the flag and the eagle combined that takes the entire window of large SUV's.
What are these people saying, that they love the country more than the poor guy they pass driving the Ford Focus with nothing but his insurance sticker on his bumper? Please.

The car I had before the one I have now had two stickers, a 4x6" American flag (judicial flag, of course, not a maritime flag) and a bumper sticker that said, "Don't steal, the government hates the competition!" The cops loved that one. This one has only an American flag on the rear, same size as the last one, also a judicial flag, as opposed to the maritime flags found on the shoulders of the police officers and in the court rooms. Were it not for the fact that my flag was there first and not from a knee-jerk reason, I'd remove it.

I for one am sick of defending Patriotism in America from attacks connecting such with Nazism.

I may go Patriot in a minute!

Originally posted by Tyriffic
I for one am sick of defending Patriotism in America from attacks connecting such with Nazism.

Relax tyriffic, you don't have to defend your beliefs to anybody. Be confident in them.

Connecting patriotism in the US to Nazism is unfair but you can atleast see it where it comes from. Pride in country, visible enemy, fear of attack, biased media and things like the Patriot Act 2. One doesn't need a crystal ball to see the results of the unchecked continuation down this path:
Suspicious neighbors turning in each other. Kids taught in school to inform on their parents. Tracking and surviellance on every citizen, including what they buy, where they shop, what books they read.

Perhaps Fascism, rather than nazism is a better word. Instead of Jews, we'll be imprisoning dissenters, "terrorists", etc.
The US is turning paranoid fast, especially at the top.

Of course, this is a worst-case type scenario.

Indeed, I should relax more. If I could just find the time...

I walk a seemingly finer line these days in defending that which I grew up with and got from my father, and that which is reality- the changing order of the world and how this (us) country is affected by it.
9/11 was a predictable and catyalytic change for the ole US. The adage 'good intentions pave the road to Hell' comes to mind when I see the news lately. That said, I have no other nation to defend, so I will be standing when the bell rings!

Aw, come on, Quango, get real! There's been many a time that rallying around the flag and a common love for the nation has been a great benefit and you know it.

Of course, it does seem that my countrymen, while having 24hr connection to news around the world, know less and less about how their own country is supposed to be. That is to say, will they be yelling "God Bless the U.S.!" while being led to the guillotine?

Tyrrific, Quango, if it seems I'm a bit split personality on this issue, it's because I am. It just depends on how the scene looks on a given day.

That would be a good way to do it, dumb the population down to where they have no clue of their heritage, but use the standard amount of ptriotism whipping while doing something bad. So far, though, I've seen none of that (as far as what we are allowed to see or know) but I am waiting. I feel Bush is much better than the 8 year depression I was under beforehand, that is why I'm expecting him to really disappoint me!

Originally posted by ADVISOR
If your way of life is being infringed upon,(if it's a accepted way) these are the people who stand up first. Patriots are those who have no second thought on makeing the right decision, for at the center of every true patriots being is the urge for fulfilment of truth.

ACK! If this is true, then I'm a PATRIOT! *falls over and dies*

And actually, in my opinion, Patriotism (in the context it's being used now, anyway) is love of one's country and the support of its government combined. Not one or the other or neither. I have nothing more to add to that, really. Just felt like posting from Freddie