The Evil Of Patriotism When Opposed To Humanism


Patriotism: Boon or Bane?

Each of the following links leads to further reports on the related issue.

For additional information see also the section
_______________
Patriotism: Boon or Bane?

The Road to Peace - Patriotism or Internationalism

What Is Patriotism?

PATRIOTISM - A Menace To Liberty

_______________

Perceptions of Combat

__________________

Remember Your Humanity!

__________________

Perceptions From Abroad

__________________
read also
 
The Hidden Costs of Patriotism:

A THOUSAND NINE ELEVENS

Final Declaration of Brussel's Peace Conference: It is Time to Unite and to Ensure Peace


Related Links

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Research and Education Centre

Not In Our Name

Very Pissed Off Combat Veterans -- And Blueprints For Change By John McCarthy

Patriotism vs. Humanity

- Patriotism: Boon or Bane? -

Home | John McCarthy | CIA | Treason in Wartime | 1941-2001 | Science vs Religion | Reality Or Hoax? | Israel & ME | 9/11 - 3/11 - 7/7 -- Cui Bono? | New World Order | Lies vs Facts | War on Terror - Terrorism of War | Patriotism vs Humanity | War Crimes - Committed 'In All Our Names' | Enviroment & Lobbyism | FOIA & Whistleblowers vs Cover-Ups | Recruiting Lies vs Military Reality | From Democracy to Dictatorship | Empire Agenda | Media Coverage | International (War)Crimes Tribunals | Take Action! - Take Back America! | Summaries & Previews | Index Part 1 | Index Part 2 | Multimedia Index

The Road to Peace -
Patriotism or Internationalism


by Ian Antius

Awhile back I read a printed version of a talk given by Robert Jensen entitled "Saying goodbye to patriotism." In it, Jensen calls patriotism "perhaps the single most morally and intellectually bankrupt concept in human history."

Jensen goes on to dissect the two main definitions of patriotism in use within this country today: as loyalty to the war effort by the jingoists and as the "real" essence of this country by some in the peace movement. He ends with: "We must say goodbye to patriotism because the world cannot survive the patriotism of Americans." (For the full text see Saying goodbye to patriotism.)

So what is this "Patriotism of Americans" that Jensen is saying the world cannot survive? I would like to put forward one veteran's view of it. As for my feeling about "Americans," please see Why I Hate "America."

For me the question of patriotism has been something I've struggled with since my high school days, when it was used to justify the draft and the war against the Vietnamese. I joined the service with the patriotic belief that I was doing my duty. By the time I left, I no longer considered myself patriotic but didn't see it as a real problem.

Then in 1989, the first Bush tried to legislate patriotism by outlawing the burning of the flag. It is telling today that, since September 11, those who cried the loudest in opposition to flag burning, calling it a desecration of a sacred symbol, have not uttered a word as the flag has been turned into clothing, used to hawk every product imaginable, and ripped to shreds on car antennas.

Vietnam veterans were among the first and the loudest to challenge the law and to oppose any attempt by this government to mandate patriotism. Soon after the law went into effect, we openly burned 1000 flags and were an important part of the effort that resulted in getting the law overthrown. I am proud to have been a part of that battle and to be one of those who put a match to this fascist attack on the ideals of freedom and democracy that the people of this country hold dear. Back then, while I considered myself 'savvy' to international events, I did not understand the real role that patriotism plays in preventing peace. But the times have changed and I with them.

Since September 11th, the U.S. has been waging a war against the people of the world under the aegis of fighting terrorism. George "War is My Middle Name" Bush reveals his definition of a terrorist when he declares, "You are either with us or with the terrorists!" Attacks on civil and legal rights like the USA PATRIOT Act and Bush's war on Immigrants are raising the stakes and dividing the country. As with his definition of terrorist, he is making patriotism a dividing line. By defining both who is a terrorist and who is a patriot, this government hopes to overwhelm any protest and to steamroll opposition to its plans.

By labeling who is a terrorist and-by implication who is not-the government can equate anti-war with terrorist, with traitor, with enemy. Then laws to protect us from terrorists will make opposition to their war illegal and they will round people up, turning the country into one large concentration camp. Fantastic? It has happened before, and is now happening quietly to thousands of non-citizens and citizens across the country.

The hallmark of the days in which we live is a sea of change where our rights and freedoms are sacrificed at the altar of Security. Again, like a generation ago, we must be patriotic in order to not be labeled traitors. For a government to be able to go to war it needs a willing populace, or a controlled one at the least. Patriotism, and loyalty to this government, will lead us like docile cattle down the road to an Orwellian future which the imperialists have in store.

So the people who say that "Peace is Patriotic"-among whom I count many veterans-are going to be in a real bind as the definition of patriotism becomes redefined. First it's patriotic to stand tall against an evil dude and his weapons of mass destruction and liberate the people. Then it gets redefined so that it's patriotic to "support our troops" because we are at war. Finally, it becomes patriotic to give up your rights and freedoms so that the government can protect them. Following patriotism will lead us, like it did the German people in the 20s and 30s, into a hell of our own government's making.

Within the patriotism issue are two important aspects that we need to understand in order to see the role of patriotism. One is the "Support the Troops" motto and its imagery of yellow ribbons. The other is the belief that soldiers can never refuse orders.

The call to "Support our Troops" targets the citizenry, you and I, and it holds our loved ones in the military hostage to gain our support for war. It uses our love and concern for our loved ones in the military to lure us into believing that the only way to ensure their safety is to support yet another 'all-out war' for someone else's money. Never mind who put them in harms way in the first place by starting a war. Never mind who harms them with experimental drugs and the horror of depleted uranium weapons. Our feelings for our loved ones are used to redefine the terms of the debate and to drag us along for the ride by our heartstrings. Once the war starts we must "support our troops."

Then there is the line that a soldier cannot refuse orders. Some veterans have told us that if the troops disobey they will endanger the lives of the other troops with whom they are in battle. Another variant of this is that the person in the military signed a contract and has no recourse. There are other reasons. Always more reasons. The argument holds that it is the military's place to decide and the soldier's duty to follow: That a person is legally bound and duty bound to follow orders unquestioningly once the uniform is donned.

But international law and precedents like the Nuremberg Principle, our world's recent history, and respect for life, especially human life, all hold that blind obedience and misguided love for a flag are no defense when a government wages an immoral, illegal, and unjust war or commits other crimes against humanity. Soldiers and citizens alike owe their first allegiance to what is right.

Both of these positions are very emotional because they involve the lives of our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers, our relatives and friends. But they lead us down the path of supporting an unjust war. The government counts on our emotion to obscure the real issues and to inspire a knee-jerk response in support of the war. "Never mind the reasons for the war, our troops are in danger and they need your support," we are told. "If you don't support the troops you must be un-American."

Like Jensen, I believe that it is no longer possible to be patriotic to this government, to both wave its flag and to be for peace. It is no longer possible, if it ever was, to redeem patriotism or to wash the blood out of the flag. The times call for something more. They call for internationalism. Internationalism is taking the ideals of freedom and democracy we hold dear and applying them not only to the people of this country, but to the people of all countries.

Embracing Internationalism is understanding that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots. Further, it is realizing that one has more in common with the have-nots-who constitute the vast majority of other human beings who walk this earth-than with the narrow, wealthy interests that drive nations to war for gain-the imperialists! Internationalism is about wanting peace-real peace-not the kind imposed at the muzzle of an assault rifle manufactured in Texas. Internationalism is about honoring and respecting humanity.

Real peace will not be possible with people barricaded behind the walls and borders that patriotism erects around a country. One of the wonderful things about humans going into space is that we can see the earth as it really is, not as humans have portrayed it with artificially drawn borders. Those borders, and the patriotism within them, hide the real division that exists in the world-the gulf between the haves and have-nots. If any gulf war needs fighting, it is this one. Patriotism and demands for blind loyalty keep the have-nots fighting among ourselves while the wealthy few provoke and manipulate us. Internationalism unites us and shows us the way to lasting peace and justice for all.

But we must not be fooled into thinking that somehow doing the right thing will be easy. No, it often comes at a great price; prison, beatings, loss of jobs and even death. A quick look at the history will confirm that. During the civil rights of the 50s and 60s many were jailed and too many were killed for daring to stand for equality. The anti-war movements during both the Vietnam and the first Gulf War saw soldiers sent to prison for refusing to deploy and for disobeying orders. But what is the alternative? Do we really want to be the good Germans of our time?

The Veterans Call to Conscience to Active Duty Troops and Reservists ends as follows: "If the people of the world are ever to be free, there must come a time when being a citizen of the world takes precedence over being the soldier of a nation." What does it mean to be a citizen of the world? It means looking at the people of the world as brothers and sisters. It means that those in the military must look beyond lies and deceit, cast off their blinders of "just following orders" and act as people of conscience, in unity with humanity. It means we all must look past the borders of countries and emotional patriotism and, instead, act as a unified people of the world, as internationalists.
 
Source:

cool hit counter

Check for latest Site-Updates

Index of Posted Articles

or copy and paste the URL into Google Translate

Important note:

We neither promote nor condone hate speech in any way, shape or form. We have created this website to search for truthful facts that can shape unconventional conclusions and restore historical integrity. The work is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution as well as by Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

 
Copyright John McCarthy 2005 if not indicated otherwise

 
Ages ago, I taught my children "never to point with a naked finger towards dressed people" and I usually keep that for myself as well but for this website I have to quote:
"The Emporer Has NO Clothes On!"
Traude
 

 
Want to get in touch? You can send email at:
 

or

Disclaimer And Fair Use