For Memorial Day: on nationalism and patriotism
The story "The Man Without a Country" used to be standard reading matter for seventh graders. In fact, it was the first "real" book--as opposed to those tedious Dick and Jane readers--that I ever was assigned to read in school. As such it was exciting, since it dealt with an actual story with some actual drama to it. It struck me as terribly sad--and unfair, too--that Philip Nolan was forced to wander the world, exiled, for one moment of cursing the United States. "The Man Without a Country" was the sort of paean to patriotism that probably would never be assigned nowadays to students.
Patriotism has gotten a very bad name during the last few decades. I think part of this feeling began (at least in this country), like so many things, with the Vietnam era. But patriotism and nationalism seem to have been rejected by a large segment of Europeans even earlier, as a result of the devastation both sentiments were seen to have wrought during WWI and WWII. Of course, WWII in Europe was a result mainly of German nationalism run amok, but it seemed to have given nationalism as a whole a very bad name.
Here's author Thomas Mann on the subject, writing in 1947 in the introduction to the American edition of Herman Hesse's Demian:
If today, when national individualism lies dying, when no single problem can any longer be solved from a purely national point of view, when everything connected with the "fatherland" has become stifling provincialism and no spirit that does not represent the European tradition as a whole any longer merits consideration..."
A strong statement of the post-WWII idea of nationalism as a dangerous force, mercifully dead or dying, to be replaced (hopefully) by a pan-national (or, rather, anational) Europeanism. Mann was a German exile from his own country, who had learned to his bitter regret the excesses to which unbridled and amoral nationalism can lead. His was an understandable and common response, one that helped lead to the formation of the EU. The nationalism of the US is seen by those who agree with him as a relic of those dangerous days of nationalism gone mad without any curb of morality or consideration for others.
But the pendulum is swinging back. The US is not Nazi Germany, however much the far left may try to make that analogy. And, in fact, that is one of the reasons they try so hard to make that particular analogy--because Nazi Germany is one of the very best examples of the dangers of unbridled and amoral nationalism.
But, on this Memorial Day, I want to say there's a place for nationalism, and for love of country. Not a nationalism that ignores morality, but one that embraces it and strives for it, keeping in mind that--human nature being what it is--no nation on earth can be perfect or anywhere near perfect. The US is far from perfect, but it is a good country nevertheless, striving to be better.
So, I'll echo the verse that figured so prominently in "The Man Without a Country," and say (corny, but true): this is my own, my native land. And I'll also echo Francis Scott Key and add: the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
posted by neo-neocon @ 2:30 PM
24 comments
24 Comments:
meanwhile in the real world nation states become less powerful. They were always a bit of a fiction and often the products of a violent birth. Large corporations are increasingly more powerful than individual countries. Large scale ideas, including Islam, are international. The internet itself will slowly help chip away at these narrow national identities.
They have not been around thatlong and they will go....sorry but its true.
It strikes me that nation-state patriotism is rather like the allegiance of a sailor to his particular ship. One could argue that his particular ship isn't *really* more important than any other ship in the task force of which it is a part, and his allegiance should be only to the task force as a whole...but this would ignore the fact that the ship is both a Gemeinschaft and a Gesellschaft...a Gemeinschaft, because it is a community: he knows the individuals on it...and a Gesellschaft, because everyone on it will literally sink--or not--together.
Again, the story of Washington, as it seems so very often to prove, is the basis for the power of an ideology and how ideology alone is not enough for success.
When people remove their connections to their ancestors and their roots, and go flying up in the air about utopia, they will tumble down as Icarus did.
So many revolutions, so many fights for freedom and liberty have failed precisely because people could not sustain the weight of the superstructure without an adequate foundation.
Washington was our foundation, and it is a great irony that he became the name of the capital of the United States when he refused to try and take back the former capital of the States back in the Revolutionary War. Philidelphia.
"But, on this Memorial Day, I want to say there's a place for nationalism, and for love of country. Not a nationalism that ignores morality, but one that embraces it and strives for it, keeping in mind that--human nature being what it is--no nation on earth can be perfect or anywhere near perfect. The US is far from perfect, but it is a good country nevertheless, striving to be better."
There is a place for nationalism and patriotism, and not just an apologetic one in the face of the abuses committed in the past by zealots of facists demagogues or collectivist communist idealogues, but a proud one in defiance of those. The unique patriotism that America engenders, lionizing the Maverick over the Assimilator, the originator over the mere user, the self-reliant man over the cradle-to-grave governmentally dependent one builds an archetype antithetical to the uncritical robotic personality that often falls prey to such radical movements. American patriotism tries to emphasize the dignity of the individual, and only after that asks that individual's contribution to society. And furthermore, looks to care for the impact of society on the individual. The excess nationalism epitomized by Hitler's Facist Nazi's, Lenin's Bolsheviks, or Mussolini's Facist Corporativists worships an archetype who's individual dignity is nothing more than his micro contribution to the state, and not an element to be celebrated for it's own value. It makes claims towards the impact of society on the individual, but only as a tool for criticism, not a fundamental virtue of it's own right. Real American patriotism recognizes and places value on the individual, and for that reason alone acts as a bulwark against the extremes that inevitably crop up in any society.
I wish to applaud the patriotism that is constructive and beneficial. I want to highlight and serve tribute towards individual sacrifice -- such as military service -- that has especially heightened meaning in a society like this which, as said above, places such value on the ethos of the individual. I want to applaud legitimate, constructive analysis and criticism of this countries endeavors, especially to contrast it with the snide, mean spirited, self congratulatory stances often mistaken for criticism which throws the notion of "being constructive" to the winds. I also want to acknowledge the individual patriotism of those who may not serve in such a capacity as a military enlistee or officer, or in a civil capacity in government, but simply, quietly live their lives in a manner that elevates not only themselves, but contributes to society. And I also want to celebrate the patriotism of those who realize and appreciate honest, beneficial American patriotism, who realize that it's okay to love and appreciate one's own country and not feel embarrased by it. That the criticism of patriotism being "the last refuge of the scoundrel" is not an indictment of patriotism itself, but rather an indictment of the individual who seeks to sully a proud virtue by hiding scoundrelly behavior behind a worthy principle.
In short, I wish we can take the ideal of patriotism -- not the excessive, state-as-God aberration exemplified in the Facist and Communist revolutions in the past, but the respectful, appreciative, beneficial patriotism idealized (if not always perfectly realized) here in the States -- away from the ironic application, the snide employment, and the ironic "scare quotes" usage of the word back to it's original intended meaning. "Patriotism" is not a dirty word in my book. It's true that it's a deviant mind that uses patriotism as an excuse towards selfish personal ends, but it's equally true that it's a small mind which seeks to perpetually conflate it with the excesses of extreme nationalistic movements in history. There is a positive application of the ideal; if only more folks would embrace it and reject the ironic connotations applied nowadays. There's nothing wrong, and plenty right with being patriotic. And there is a place for it nowadays, as there should be.
Hitler didn't love his country, and therefore was not a patriot. Because a patriot loves his country. Hitler did not surrender, because to him the death of Germany would be a great bonfire to send off after Hitler killed himself.
Hirohito was a patriot, and that is why he saved his country from annihilation instead of pushing it into the fire.
Thus we see the constructive virtues of patriotism vs the destructive vices of hate and rage.
oh i get it....nationalism and patriotic feeling is fine if it is american. All other countries are suspect. now i wonder...........
Is it these ideas that makes the rest of the world think you lot are dangerous and a tad arrogant....could be. That and all the weapons, invading, gun fetish etc.
I will make you a bet......it is a bit impossible to check on but.....
The United States is more than half way through its existence. Either
1. It will split along state lines
or
2. A Civil War. left v right?
3. A gradual decline in the importance of national boundaries in the face of technological change and the rise of international political and economic organisations.
My money is on 3. But we shall see.
Strawman 101:"oh i get it....nationalism and patriotic feeling is fine if it is american. All other countries are suspect. now i wonder..........."
No, American patriotism is different from the type of patriotism that's been predominant throughout history, and is an example of 'good' patriotism. Others may also qualify- It is not an exclusive statement. For you to perceive it as such says something about your sensitivities.
It strikes me odd that many on the left criticize us for 'not understanding' others, particularly our enemies, and yet those criticizing us from, for instance, Europe, don't understand us. They believe that we are like them, they fear the echoes of the past, even though it comes not from us... The American Revolution was the rarest of the rare- because we were lead by men who did NOT seek power, only freedom. Washington could easily have been the new King George, but declined, and in fact left the presidency voluntarily. Unlike almost any other revolutionary leader in history. So we are different to our core. We've never had a chage of government by other than democratic means- even those who might've been considered 'power hungry', like Jackson, left the presidency at the appointed time peacefully. Compare that to other nations.
As earlier mentioned, part of our difference is that anyone might become American, regardless of race, creed, country of origin... I could emigrate to some European country, but I'd never really be French, or Polish, or Swedish, or Hungarian, I'd always be an outsider- look at the emmigrants to France and Germany from North Africa and Turkey...
"The internet itself will slowly help chip away at these narrow national identities.
They have not been around thatlong and they will go....sorry but its true."
Say, can you get me the lotto numbers for Wednesday night?
Predictions, not worth the paper they're printed on.
And we on the right get criticized for our certitude and arrogance? These comments have the ring of the 'trajectory of history into communism'... It must happen, it is inevitable...
"The United States is more than half way through its existence. Either
1. It will split along state lines
or
2. A Civil War. left v right?
3. A gradual decline in the importance of national boundaries in the face of technological change and the rise of international political and economic organisations.
My money is on 3. But we shall see."
Well, we likely won't see, because we'll be long gone, however: Split of states or civil war not likely- our politics isn't the sort of ideological mess that parlimentary politics is because the two-party system is actually unifying (current 'divisiveness' not withstanding)- it makes the middle the critical piece rather the the fringes being necessary to build coalition... We may be 'divided' now, but that's really just politics- if you're not living here, don't judge the state of our populus by blog comment sections... it's just not an accurate representation of daily life. Of your three possibilities, three is the only even remotely plausible one, and it is not likely- human nature requires a placement- a way to locate one's self in the world. Nations are part of that anchorage. As an architect, I see the importance of the physical place every day- technology and trade will not erase that. modify it perhaps, but it won't erase it. Now, the ascendance of English as the world language might be a more interesting approach to the question of the future of national identities.
Even as postwar Europe was self-flagellating over the dangers of nationalism, the Soviets, studying their enemies' weakness, were conspiring to turn the European Union into a socialist Utopia:
Leftist elites: Unwitting servants of a totalitarian impulse?
well then douglas
1. You imediately contradict yourself and say that american patriotism is unique
The American Revolution was the rarest of the rare- because we were lead by men who did NOT seek power, only freedom
and it was based on the existence of slavery and the annhilation of an indigenous population. And, good 'though it may have been nothing is perfect.
2. Much of what you say is a good example of the naturalistic fallacy. It IS like this so therefore it OUGHT to be - it is natural and forever. Well it isn't. Like all nations the USA is a social organisation with a myth making machine that will, eventually disappear as we develop more advanced social instutions (or fall into chaos).
3. Nation states are a recent development. People have had all kinds of ways to anchor themselves in society, on both a smaller and larger scale.
4. Of course predictions are a bit silly,. I was simply trying to suggest a few ideas to yrmdwnkr. It is worth thinking about it is stuff. It is likely that if we had a time machine and could see 2/300 years into the future we would both be amazed and seen to be wrong about any things. As for the issue of splits, well youare in a much better position than me to assess the unity of the usa. It is a little while since i have been but i am impressed by the depth of venom around current debates and the way they have become polarized on a strong democrat v republican basis.
NEo makes a good example of this. As a former 'liberal' she appears to have taken the full range of Bush type repuiblican ideas on board. From the outside it looks like there is no other route - - and it is frankly a little scary.
5. I agree with you about the english language. If only because it will end up structuring the nature of debate.
Concerning the subject of the length of existence of the American Empire, I must say I've looked at the Roman Empire in a historical setting and this is my conclusion. Rome lasted around 500 years. Starting from the Republic days of 227 BC to the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Rome, in 350 (about) AD.
Then there was the Eastern Roman Empire offshoot, which lasted another 500-1000 years. So technically, the Roman Empire could be said to have lasted 1,000 at a minimum. But if we look deeper, we simply see that after 500 years, big bad political and geographic changes become into effect. The British Empire lasted around 500 years as well. And then there was the Ottoman Empire, and etc. All lasted around 500 years from glorious start to weakened end. I can't recall the dates, but you can look it up if you want. Russia, of course lasted about 100 years. There has been a tendency for recent Empires to last shorter years, but I attribute that to the rate of social and technological change. Decadent Empires too weak to hold onto their territory have strong rivals in today's world, and therefore don't last 1,000 years past their prime anymore. The British Empire obviously might have lasted longer, without WWII and America butting in.
So since America has around 250 years, or thereabouts, we are actually 50% through the first stage of Empire. So to speak. We are coming into our prime. This is the time of our 2nd Punic Wars where we obliterate Carthage. We had after all, just defeated the Soviet Union and like Carthage the SU was a direct competitor for world superpower status. If we had not defeated the SU, then the world geo-political arrangement would be very different from now. As with Rome and Carthage.
I really don't believe anyone can see into the future without having looked back at the past with the shades off their eyes. Ijust don't think it can be done. Without knowing what went before us, how can we know what has gone after us?
The Indians are very lucky to be living in the United States. There are men and women in the rest of the world, Darfur for example, that would probably give an arm and a leg (literally) to get into the US and become automatic citizens with native American benefits.
As far as the Native Americans go, any time a superior technology meets an inferior one, the superior technology is going to win. They had the inferior technology. And we were both competing for the same resource. This is a story as old as time.
wow. are you serious in this attitude? So if somebody turns up who is smarter than america they are morally and historically entitled to wipe you out?
have you thought this through?
I tend to think anyone nation that cannot defend itself from external or internal enemies deserves to be destroyed. As Carthage was destroyed, as Rome fell. Social darwinism perhaps, but still, there is no contention that it exists and has existed in human history.
If a group of people does not win, then they did not deserve to win. Their cause might have been just, but history will remember them for failure and nothing more. If their cause is truly just, then they must succede. For if they do not, why should anyone have faith in their tenets or philosophy?
Americans with our self-defense priorities, our 2nd Ammendment, I think understands this important facet about deserving victory above all else. It is not enough just to be the victor, we have to be the right victor.
Some things, such as terrorism, do not contribute to the fight for freedom. When a person devours their own in their revolution, they do not deserve to win, as Robsppiere did not deserve to win and thus he did not win.
I don't know whether it is more accurate to call this might makes right or right makes might. But is very ironic, nonetheless.
If a group of people does not win, then they did not deserve to win. Their cause might have been just, but history will remember them for failure and nothing more. If their cause is truly just, then they must succede. For if they do not, why should anyone have faith in their tenets or philosophy?
i suggest you work through the logic of this statement. It might be helpful to you.
1. if you do not win it is because you did not deserve to even if you were just.
2. If you are just you will succeed.
by this logic either
statement 1 is wrong because statement 2 says the just will win.
or statement 2 is wrong because statement 1 says that losers can be just
which one is it?
As for social darwinism itis a theory with a long, and generally unpleasant history, but it is coherent. The snag with yrmdwnkrs version is that it reifies nations. That is it gives them an independent existence. They don't have this. Nations are organisations run by individual humans. You can't really say "americans are all ......." Because they are many things. ...and before anybody else says it i am well aware how guilty i am of this:-). We all do this as a short hand. But in reality nations are not competing individuals, they are very complex social and political organisations existing in a network of larger and smaller organisations. If it is any consolation yrmdwnkr Hitler outlined a theory of nations very similar to yours in Mein Kamf
If a nation confines itself to 'internal colonization' while other races are perpetually increasing their territorial annexations all over the globe, that nation will be forced to restrict the numerical growth of its population at a time when the other nations are increasing theirs. This situation must eventually arrive. It will arrive soon if the territory which the nation has at its disposal be small. Now it is unfortunately true that only too often the best nations - or, to speak more exactly, the only really cultured nations, who at the same time are the chief bearers of human progress - have decided, in their blind pacifism, to refrain from the acquisition of new territory and to be content with 'internal colonization.' But at the same time nations of inferior quality succeed in getting hold of large spaces for colonization all over the globe. A Hitler - dictator (failed)
your kinda guy
It's about who has the bigger gun.
So very Jacksonian of you, factotum. What would the European re-education instructors think of what you just said?
Some beliefs are just, however this does not mean that all actions taken towards accomplishing those beliefs are just. A revolution for freedom might be just, but if they start hanging women and children cause they are enemies of the state, then well I tend to think every conscientious objector would sort of realize that their cause would no longer be just because it has been sullied by the blood of innocents.
I assure everyone, I have the logic down to a nanoscale.
As for the subject of Hitler's remarks. I tend to think it is true. Small nations with small amount of land will not produce the same population and resources as a big one, like America. That is an unchangeable fact after all. People could try to change that through invasion and conquest, but it doesn't really mean it will solve anything. There is a finite amount of land and real estate in the world, and nobody can have it all. If they even try to grab some, they will try to grab it all in order to maintain their power and balance, much as a sun must convert hydrogen to helium in order to counter-act the pull of the sun's own gravity. Eventually the conquest scales down, either because they faced a more powerful foe or because they ran out of land, and the sun will then expand and then blow up. And that's the end of that, as they say.
So how do small nations become as great as large superpower nations? They can't. Every nation and people has a fate. They can only operate within the limits of their own power. There are times when you can exceed the nominal power of your nation, but it is an extremely dangerous process. Much as pushing the body human limits is a dangerous process.
The 50 states of America have solved the problem brilliantly. Power accrues not because one state conquers more land, but because all 50 states work as one organism, as one country and one nation for the good of all. The power that acrues from the combination of free men and women are unimaginable. Conquest will give you land, but it will never give you the loyalty of the people. That, America has always recognized beyond anything else.
Yrmdwnkr don't you worry a bit when you find yourself agreeing with Hitler? I mean a little bit of you must feel unomfortable as the extension to his argument was that the weaker nations, the untermensch, must be eradicated.
However I have to agree with you on this point. Conquest will give you land, but it will never give you the loyalty of the people.
Ymar doesn't feel uncomfortable at all in finding some things that Hitler said to be accurate. I know, cause I just asked him.
The 50 states of America have solved the problem brilliantly. Power accrues not because one state conquers more land, but because all 50 states work as one organism, as one country and one nation for the good of all.
By God, a molecule of sense at last. Now lets work to peacefully extend that system across the entire world.
Using war and violence as an absolute last resort.
Here's another lunatic utopian that shares that ideal.
It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for you to get along in the republic of the United States. Now when Kansas and Colorado have a quarrel over the water in the Arkansas river they don't call out the national guard in each state and go to war over it. They bring suit in the Supreme Court of the United States and abide by the decision. There isn't a reason in the world why we can't do that internationally.
Truman, Harry 1884-1972
There's one reason. The police is corrupt. Nobody is going to go to court when the police is corrupt.
To elaborate, organized crime has little trouble buying judges and juries, intimidating them into doing the right thing.
I regret to say that the extension of rights to slaves, the freedom from British tyranny and repression, were not the results of peaceful expansion and ideological migration as BMC would prefer.
I suggest to conned, that he should not be against everything his enemies (Hitler) is against. That is inflexible, predictable, and in Sun Tzu's world, extremely fatal. Good thing for Conned, America is in control of this era of humanity.
I tend to think people are better when they realize that there is honor among one's enemies. Hitler may have had no redeeming traits, honorable or not, but this does not justify knee jerk reactionary denial of everything Hitler believed. This is foolish, dangerous even if you are required to confront another Hitler in the making, Amanie of Iran.
"Damn the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States again!" So many of us have said the same, by our deeds and by our indifference. We're a country of Philip Nolans. Perhaps for us there will be punishment and then redemption too. Perhaps not.
"Patriotism has gotten a very bad name during the last few decades..."
That all depends on which circle you surround yourself with. Patriotism never went out of style except amongst the protected and pampered, those who never had to face down physical threats.
The not-so-far-Left (i.e.: just about any journalist) likes to protray patriots as mindless dupes, ignorant and uneducated simpletons who respond to jingoistic propaganda.
Instead we simply recognize some basic and glaringly obvious truths that seem to forever escape our detractors. The United States is the home of a great people who have, more than any other society or culture, been at the forefront of great deeds for the past century. The entire world, not only Americans, benefitted fom our efforts. That is something worthy of our pride, that is something worth protecting.
Right this minute, the US military represents more than 50% of the world's conventional combat power. Which nation in all of history would refrain from simply taking what they wanted? Yet the free election in recently invaded Iraq, and the fact that they are selling their oil at market value while gas is $300 a gallon in the US, proves that we are liberators and not conquerors.
So who are these amazing Americans who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in the service of their country, and bring freedom where once was tyranny? It certainly isn't anyone who sniffs with disdain at the very thought of patriotism. Those guys just don't have the stones.
James
Aw, poop! Typo time.
In the comment above I said
"Yet the free election in recently invaded Iraq, and the fact that they are selling their oil at market value while gas is $300 a gallon in the US, proves that we are liberators and not conquerors."
I meant to step that down two orders of magnitude since gas isn't that expensive yet. Sorry!
James
Just realize james, that people will interpret the high gas prices as Bush's oil cronies getting rich off of iraq and racketeering. So this is just one more brick in the road of Bush's neo-con conquest.
I've said this before, but two people looking at the same facts will come to two opposite conclusions because theyjust don't think the same way nor are they the same kidn of person.
Post a Comment
<< Home