Mis-labeled words and anti-nationalism

The modern day has seen a change in the use of language. But ultimately changing the meaning of a concept is somewhat more difficult. Common misusage generally implies a poverty of education, not a refining of a word's meaning. And there are a great many terms being abused in this manner by politicians and news media alike. Creating euphemisms and repeating terms in a peculiar manner thousands of times does not change the meaning of the ideas; it merely perverts the usage. Patriotism, for example, has become synonymous with things that are not at all related. The obedience and subservience of a people to the state's wants is not patriotism, but rather fascism. The belief in the superiority of one's state is not patriotism, but rather nationalism. Patriotism is in fact something different than we are led to believe by its common word usages. It is a love of country so complete as to compel the individual toward the betterment of his compatriots and indeed the individual along with them. Why we are not taught these distinctions is something to discover at another time. It is necessary instead to discern its proper forms of expression in order to clearly define it.

If patriotism is a love, then it should follow similar precepts. One of love's defining attributes is to say that if one is in love they should gladly sacrifice their own happiness and even their own life for the advancement of the object of that love. To serve one's country in this fashion is generally seen in the light of military service. This harkens back all the way to the beginnings of American history with the presidency of General Washington. Indeed most presidents have a degree of military service. Yet this is not universal. How could anyone hope to aspire to the highest of offices without fulfilling a patriotic duty? This would seem to be the suggestion of modern politics.

It is actually a recent development to link patriotism with service. It stems from the historical fact that America has been long involved in wars over the past century. Obviously a good sized portion of its citizens would be veterans of these wars. It would stand to reason that a successful politician should have at least the appearance of having fulfilled this civic duty to appeal to these voters. Up until 1940 with the institution of the first peacetime draft, Americans were not compelled to serve in the military as is commonplace in Europe and elsewhere. While volunteering for a term in the Army was an honored tradition for many prominent families whose ties went back to the Revolutionary War, it was by no means necessary that young men be challenged with their patriotism for not serving in the armed forces. I would not however endeavor to suggest that someone who serves is not patriotic, far from it. Instead I offer that it is not a requisite. It is merely a demonstration of love of country, but the not the only means to achieve this.

There is the additional problem of the advancement of the country. A war is not necessarily advancement. A war of aggression where there is a conquered enemy to take spoils from is, of course. A war where one country defends its allies is advancement in a certain sense as well; there is the benefit of a grateful foreign power. A war where someone defends his homeland is not. It is in that case more of a necessity or a natural reaction. Certainly no one would seek eagerly to flee from his ancestral lands and friendships, even in the face of a hostile invader. Yet it is often in these instances, where a country is attacked by another, that the appeal by leaders to patriotism is most vehement. Many Russians refer to World War II as the Great Patriotic War. Josef Stalin recognized the natural desire of Russians to repel invaders, particularly German ones, and appealed to this to fill the ranks of his army. The attacks on Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center likewise saw enormous volunteer enlistments by Americans immediately following these national tragedies. But in these cases it is for defence or perhaps even revenge, not for advancement, that people enlist. This is still patriotic to protect other's lives, but it in no way advances the lives of these others.

How then do people commit themselves to the advancement of a country? Here the task is less clear. There is the assertion that speaking ill of one's country is in someway unpatriotic. This is folly. Speaking ill without reason or cause may well be. But speaking ill to show weaknesses is not somehow unpatriotic or unfriendly, how else is a thing to be addressed and improved? As it would be in a relationship or friendship, issues arise that must be discussed, hopefully rationally, to resolve them. Demonstrations to show the levels of disaffection in the form of marches and pickets are a protected aspect of free speech in America. Despite the sometimes unsavory or unpopular nature of the marchers, the right to assemble and organize others to voice common displeasures is guaranteed in free societies. Without this guarantee, the civil rights movement would be a much more violent progression, more so even than the various riots and fire hoses that were encountered. It would be akin instead to the insurrection of Kansas prior to its statehood. Here thousands of pro-slavery and opposing abolitionist settlers flocked to decide by vote the matter of slavery. In the process the state was a microcosm of the coming Civil War, with gangs of settlers murdering and menacing the opposition in what is often referred to as "Bloody Kansas." Simply acting violently without regard to the target of destruction is not patriotic or even productive. But forcing others to pay attention and address the division over a particular issue is a necessary service of a disaffected people. There are but few diplomatic manners in which to speak on issues such as these and so often the nature of speech is violence. This is unfortunate as it compels a good deal of public indifference to the speech of a few more rational men. But the persistence of the assault on our conscience cannot be ignored forever. Eventually it should be addressed, in one way or another, for the advancement and protection of the weak and evidently the betterment of all.

Here is the nature of love at its fullest measure. A caring person tends to the object of their love with great affection, taking joy in their success and suffering at their side. Tender care must be taken to alleviate suffering, with attention to even the slightest detail necessary at times. Applied to a country we find that a person's civic duty is not merely to serve it in time of war; but also in peace. This service is not limited to a branch of the armed forces, but it is instead something simpler. Most of us have concerns over the nature of certain laws or the lack thereof. Sometimes it may be as simple as the need for a traffic light at a nearby intersection. In other cases, it is the disenfranchisement of an entire class or race of people. Things such as jury duty to help the state discern and punish the wicked and deceitful among us fulfill this duty in small measure. Marching with others who share the same concerns does so. And in fact, the simple act of voting does so. Speaking with a clear voice where it is believed the course of the country lies is the cause of a true patriot.

President Kennedy poses us the question, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." This seems at first a fine line between patriotism and fascism. Look closely however; there is a choice. We are told to ask. To look about our lives and wonder how we can make our own journey more tolerable. Where we are satisfied, then we are to look to others with the same questions. The civic duty of a citizen is to seek to improve individually, and then to look around to serve others who have needs, not to demand from the state these things unless it is the only the full power of an aggravated nation that can bring to heel the demons plaguing our lives. What is expected then of a patriot? This is the nature of patriotism: to love one's nation is as it would be to love one's family, particularly as regards children. There is the need for sternness and fondness. There is the need for affection and for patience at times. A measure of tolerance at misdeeds is expected, but a tolerance for injustice or egregious error by the state is not. The words and deeds of a patriot would suggest a genuine belief in the improvement of the country just as a parent seeks to guide a child. Protecting the country is of course an exemplary act, but is only as natural as a lioness guarding her cubs. To suggest that it is a necessity that one serve in such a fashion or have their love of country questioned is preposterous. It is rather a duty and attention to others that should have cause for patriotism. If this should find the patriot armed with a pen or a picket sign instead of a rifle, so be it.