[lbo-talk] Patriotism is Relative, Not Absolute

Chuck0 chuck at mutualaid.org
Fri Aug 8 08:07:32 PDT 2003


jacdon at earthlink.net wrote:


> Many people in the peace movement consider themselves patriots who love
> their country too much to remain silent when it perpetrates a colossal
> misdeed. And they think of the flag as being just as much theirs as
> that of the right-wingers and war mongers who attempt to appropriate it
> for themselves.

What a bunch of stupid, spineless morons! Why would any peace activist, who should know about the incredibly violent history of the USA, still conisder themselves to be a "patriot", not to mention a person who "loves" a country with a history of over two centuries of violence and genocide?


> Others, including ourselves, are internationalists committed to
> left-wing political ideals concerning our world and its inhabitants.
> They do not necessarily claim to love a country or a flag in the
> abstract or make efforts to portray themselves as national patriots.
> But as responsible citizens committed to progressive ideals — which of
> course include a love of humanity regardless of national boundaries and
> actions to create a truly just society in the United States in
> fulfillment of a broader vision of world peace and cooperation — they
> seek to defend what is positive about the country and change what is
> negative, such as militarism, racism, and systemic economic and social
> inequality.

Ack. What a bunch of wishy-washy, two-faced mumbo jumble. You can't have it two ways here, especially in this country. I'm sure this writer REALLY doesn't like the USA, but is writing this nonsense in order to protect peace activists from the spectre of McCarthyism and rabid patriots. In fact, there is ZERO reason for the peace and anti-war movements to wave the flag, redefine what patriotism means, or engage in any submissive efforts to "protect" ourselves from the public. You may see a few flags hanging around, but patriotism in the USA is 5 feet wide and a millimeter deep. What's more, the polls show that a substantial number of Americans opposed the war and even more oppose George Bush. There simply is no need to write articles like this. It represents a leftist view of the world that has no basis in reality.


> The important thing in terms of our movement for peace and social
> justice is that we remain strong and uncompromising in the face of those
> exponents of reaction in the White House and elsewhere who try to
> intimidate us by questioning our patriotism. It is this widespread
> reactionary form of "patriotism" — when the notion is used as a bludgeon
> to enforce conformity or adherence to a right-wing agenda — that
> perfectly fits the definition, "the last refuge of scoundrels."

Why should we remain strong and uncompromising? Who is attacking us? The loonies associated with David Horowitz? Big fucking deal? Are people throwing shit at peact activists? Not the last time I checked.

This essay is a very good example of the defensive, reactionay thinking that still infects some on the American left. The only reason why this writer feels compelled to defend the "patriotism" of activists is because he assumes that our views are unpopular and that we risk some kind of repression if we speak our true minds. This writer is stuck in the past and doesn't understand that the terrain has changed.

Let's oppose the war machine and American capitalism, but let's also oppose ignorant bullshit like patriotism.

Chuck0



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list