I find this word used in some very peculiar ways. The one I particularly want to address here is the version where a self-proclaimed "patriot" takes exception to some sort of criticism directed toward any aspect of the US, from senatorial salaries to the weather. The dialogue with which this "patriot" responds is so uniform I can recite along with it. It goes something like this:
"America is the free-est (substitute greatest on occasion) country in the world! We have it better (occasionally are better) than any other nation! If you don't like the way things are here, why don't you leave (or, if the person making the critique appears/sounds anything other than WASP, go back where s/he came from)."
Completely leaving aside the bigotry of that last variation, which is utterly inexcusable in any circumstances but occasionally laughable when addressed to another citizen, there is a very basic flaw in this logic.
The US may or may not be freer than other nations. I consider this arguable. It is certainly true that the US is the only nation I know of that has produced a document such as the Bill of Rights. Well, produced it and kept it, anyway; Lenin passed a fantastic swathe of citizens' rights legislation but it was reversed within a few decades. My spouse points out that the US is the only nation that has both freedom of expression and the right to bear arms. I must say, England didn't look any the worse, civil liberties wise, for making anything but hunting rifles unavailable while I was there, but that was only for six months. The answer to whether there is more open economic opportunity hereabouts seems to depend on who one asks. Personally, I think the US is (or has been, before King George W got rolling) pretty much on a par with a lot of other first world countries when it comes to freedom/opportunity (am I the only one who finds it peculiar that those are used as if there were interchangable?), all depending on what segment of the nation and what rights one is looking at at any given time. But that isn't the logical flaw I mean.
What I mean is the assumption that just because things are good we should not try to make them better.
Are you really going to wallow in the luxury of those rights and opportunities secured through the work of citizens in decades past, possibly even your own ancestors, the benifits that you enjoy purely by virtue of your place of birth and which are due to no effort of your own, and try to deny any attempt at fixing the problems we still have, thus handing on no improvement whatsoever to future generations, and have the brass nerve to call such moral cowardice patriotism?
I think not.
The ethos of the US national founders was one of constant improvement. This should not come as a surprise, considering that they were all products of an Enlightenment era education. Go read Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia or Franklin's essays and Autobiography, or even that blow-hard John Adams if you can stand his xenophobia and male-supremacist attitude. I'm not saying any of them (except perhaps Franklin) would favor the changes of the past or the ones we're looking at now. They don't live now. We do. They made the changes they saw were neccesary in their own time. We are the ones who need to have our eyes open now, in order to keep the program going. To do otherwise is a base betrayal of the ideals that the "patriot" claims so vociferously to love.
To believe that improvements can be made without debate, without open discussion of which ones will do the most good and the least harm, goes beyond cowardice and well into unbelievable stupidity. Or, possibly, willful ignorance.
So, while I'm not wild about the whole concept of countries, and consider nationalism some kind of psychological disease, and would give quite a lot to take a time machine back and slap around many of the people involved in structuring this nation, I swear the next time someone gives me the the line I quoted above I'm going to smack them into next week.
While I'm thinking of it, can I also note the screaming hypocrisy of pretending that displaying the Stars and Stripes 24/7 is somehow a voucher of patriotism?
Can we say "flag code"?
Learn it people! Personally, I don't like the US flag. I think it's unaesthetic; this from someone who favors asymmetry, mind you. I think it's cluttered, pretentious and a general eyesore. I certainly don't think it should be used as decorator decor. But if you're going to display it, do it right. Just to name a few stipulations, the flag is not to be flown in the rain (which knocks off the car-flags right there) or at night unless there is a light on it. It is not supposed to touch the ground when being taken up and down. If it does, of if it becomes worn or damaged in any way, it's supposed to be retired or destroyed. The approved method of destruction is rather involved; it starts with dismembering and includes burning the pieces and reciting a little speech over them. The burning thing amuses me to no end, actually.
If you desire so desperately to display your patriotism, find some meaningful way to do so. Don't rely on the limp gesture of waving our national eyesore and pretend that's all you need to do.
And especially don't pretend that such half-hearted efforts give you the right to disparage the working patriotism of those who value their home enough to try and make it better.
Last modified: 08/23/08
Firs Posted: 10/13/2001
© 1998-2009 Emily Ravenwood