A few weeks ago, I noticed the first of fall's leaves scattered across my front yard. Even though it was 85 degrees and sunny, it was a quiet reminder of an inescapable destiny...fall is coming, and with it, a new routine, shorter days, a national obsession with everything pumpkin spice, and football.
Is there anything more American than football Sundays? Burgers and beers, maybe some bean bags on the front lawn? About two years ago, however, the notion of what is "American" and "football" got in a fight. A fight we're still having. Namely, is taking a knee during the signing of the national anthem unpatriotic?
I've drafted Eric to write this with me, because if you want a hot take on a "controversial issue" he is definitely your guy.
Eric:
“Let’s write about patriotism.” Oh dear. This is a minefield in the way that light-hearted subjects like guns and abortion aren’t. I’m only half-kidding. So, before I start upsetting you, allow me to state that I unequivocally respect and support our armed forces, police, and firefighters. Members of my family have served (one of my brothers-in-law is a career naval officer) and had careers as police. My support includes critiquing those services and vocations; the services these occupations provide require the best of us. Vigilant oversight is required. My grandfather (lifelong policeman) used to say that the only thing worse than a criminal was a bad cop. You can quibble with the wording, but I think the sentiment was spot-on.
That said…
It appears to me that most Americans think that being a patriot is a good thing. No matter your skin color, political opinions, gender or age, “patriot” has a high Q-Rating. And I have no idea why.
I was 16 when I first heard Sean Connery’s dulcet tones quote Oscar Wilde: “Patriotism is the virtue of the viscous.” It sounded cool in the way that high-minded quotes sounded in 1990’s action movies. In short, I loved it. I quoted it often, to and for the annoyance of anyone getting caught up in “patriotism” – whether it was in a discussion of the Iraq war or while watching the Olympics. Over time, though, I’ve learned that it’s not quite right. Leave it to a fellow Irish playwright to get it exactly right:
“Patriotism is, fundamentally, a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it.” - George Bernard Shaw
Ooof. Webster’s defines a patriot as a person who loves and loyally or zealously supports his own country, which implies that there are two distinct components of patriotism, a feeling of love as well as an active expression of that devotion.
Looking at the first part of that definition, should we love our county? Plato (in Crito) used the parent/child analogy to argue for that love. A parent brings a child into the world, nurtures it, and educates it. The child owes it love. That seems straightforward. We were born in/grew up in a country. We “owe” what we have to that country’s laws/infrastructure. I understand that argument. I won the lottery being born here. The opportunities that I have are directly linked to the work of the generations of Americans that came before me. I deeply appreciate that. I respect that.
But looking back at Plato’s metaphor, what happens if the parent in question is a molester? An abuser? Certainly, that child has no obligation to love his or her parent. So, then, what if your country isn’t living up to the ideals it was founded on? What happens when it goes to unjust wars, kills hundreds, if not thousands, each month, in actions that most of its citizens know nothing about? What if it has dragged its heals, for decades (if not centuries) on achieving racial justice? Is there an obligation to love that nation? I love parts of my country, and I love what my country aspires to, but does being a patriot require unconditional love?
How about the second part of Webster’s definition? Should we have to actively express our devotion of love, assuming we must possess it? What form does that take? Can you be a patriot if you don’t hang the flag from your home? If you don’t start your day with the Pledge of Allegiance? For Plato, the expression of his love was found in obeying and respecting the laws of the government, even when he believed the laws to be corrupted or incorrect (in Crito, Socrates decides not to escape from prison despite and unjust sentence of death). Aristotle, quite famously, decided to abandon Plato’s expression of love. After the death of Alexander the Great, Aristotle left Athens “lest the Athenians should sin against philosophy for the second time.” He understood that what was best for society was a continued and unfettered search for truth, which was no longer guaranteed by his government once Alexander was gone. Aristotle bounced. Plato argued he’d stay and die. I already know which side of the fence I would rather be on.
So, the answers to some of these questions are obvious – you need not love your abuser; you need not express your love of country if you believe it’s on the wrong path. This is exactly why Jefferson, Madison, and rest of the Founding Fathers enshrined in the First Amendment the Right of Free Speech. The Founders didn’t write that clause so you could jump on Twitter and tell a celebrity they suck. They wrote that clause so that the government could not silence your criticism of it. Let me emphasize this point, because most of us have had a shit education with regards to civics: The premise of the First Amendment is that a democracy cannot exist unless its people are able to criticize the government – wholly, fully, uncensored, and without fear of punishment by that government.
Can you love something and still criticize it? Of course you can. You can even argue the expression of that love could be the critique itself. It may be more patriotic to protest the actions of your country than to criticize those who are protesting said actions, because the definition of “patriot” appears to be at odds with the very Right that allows for a democracy to exist. “I love my country, no matter how many black people are murdered by police, no matter how many schools are bombed by our bombs, no matter how many children are deliberately punished for their parents’ attempt to seek a better life, no matter…” That kind of thinking, that kind of indoctrination, is incredibly dangerous. Shaw said patriotism is thinking your country is better than the rest because it’s your country. That inevitably leads to the intolerance of people from other countries. From intolerance, the step to hatred isn’t far off. Then war. I imagine the Venn diagram of people who can’t handle football players protesting racial injustice and people who are vocal about how patriotic they are is a circle, or close to it. And therein lies the danger of patriotism.
Everyone reading this knows that a couple of years ago, a football player decided to exercise his Right of Free Speech in order to bring attention to the continued problem of racial injustice in America, and most of the self-described “patriots” in this country lost their damn minds. Confused about the subject of the protest (racial injustice, not the US of A – c’mon, Ghandi wasn’t protesting food during his hunger strike, smdh), upset about its message (yes, there are people in this country that desire racial injustice), or ignorant of the circumstances which allowed the player to protest (the history and meaning of the First Amendment, along with an absence of a legal/contractual requirement to stand during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner before an NFL game begins), these “patriots” did everything from spending their Sundays “tut-tutting” the players to outright refusing to watch the NFL. To a rational observer, that was craaaaaaaaazy. I mean, full-out, can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing crazy. And at its root… patriotism.
You don’t have to be patriotic to vote, participate in your community, and work towards common goals. You don’t have to be patriotic to read a newspaper, a history book, or a long-form article on an issue of the day. The sort of delusions about the superiority of one’s country and its leaders can only get in the way of making intelligent, independent decisions. Patriotism destroyed Rome. It destroyed Athens. It pits country against country, in a fight to the death. The best future we can hope for is one in which people love their families, friends, and neighbors and respect all human beings, but don’t waste their love on destructive and suicidal obsessions with national power. Love is too precious to spend on fuel for the raging fire that kills self-respect and independent thought and brings a curse upon the earth.
Look, the reason my wife asked me to join her in writing about this is because the football player is back, now with an advertising campaign, and, inevitably, there will be more players exercising their First Amendment rights this weekend. Well, not for nothing, the anthem spouts “rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air,” which symbolizes the military power of our country, and is surely not a worthy object of love, any more than, say, Hitler’s army was. When we hear the anthem, we can still delight in the thought of our “spacious skies and amber waves of grain,” which are worthy of love, but no more so than the natural beauty of other nations. Patriotism is a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it. We don’t need that.
I continue to admire the ideals in the name of which America was founded. I will continue to vote, pay taxes, obey the law, and fulfill my responsibilities as a citizen, and as a rational person, I understand my country is not perfect and does not deserve unwavering fealty from me. It falls to us to bring to life the ideals We, the People believe are important, and when we fall short, We, the People must strive to do what we can to form a more perfect union. Occasionally, that may require taking a knee in quiet protest. It is a quintessential American way forward.
Erin:
But looking back at Plato’s metaphor, what happens if the parent in question is a molester? An abuser? Certainly, that child has no obligation to love his or her parent. So, then, what if your country isn’t living up to the ideals it was founded on? What happens when it goes to unjust wars, kills hundreds, if not thousands, each month, in actions that most of its citizens know nothing about? What if it has dragged its heals, for decades (if not centuries) on achieving racial justice? Is there an obligation to love that nation? I love parts of my country, and I love what my country aspires to, but does being a patriot require unconditional love?
How about the second part of Webster’s definition? Should we have to actively express our devotion of love, assuming we must possess it? What form does that take? Can you be a patriot if you don’t hang the flag from your home? If you don’t start your day with the Pledge of Allegiance? For Plato, the expression of his love was found in obeying and respecting the laws of the government, even when he believed the laws to be corrupted or incorrect (in Crito, Socrates decides not to escape from prison despite and unjust sentence of death). Aristotle, quite famously, decided to abandon Plato’s expression of love. After the death of Alexander the Great, Aristotle left Athens “lest the Athenians should sin against philosophy for the second time.” He understood that what was best for society was a continued and unfettered search for truth, which was no longer guaranteed by his government once Alexander was gone. Aristotle bounced. Plato argued he’d stay and die. I already know which side of the fence I would rather be on.
So, the answers to some of these questions are obvious – you need not love your abuser; you need not express your love of country if you believe it’s on the wrong path. This is exactly why Jefferson, Madison, and rest of the Founding Fathers enshrined in the First Amendment the Right of Free Speech. The Founders didn’t write that clause so you could jump on Twitter and tell a celebrity they suck. They wrote that clause so that the government could not silence your criticism of it. Let me emphasize this point, because most of us have had a shit education with regards to civics: The premise of the First Amendment is that a democracy cannot exist unless its people are able to criticize the government – wholly, fully, uncensored, and without fear of punishment by that government.
Can you love something and still criticize it? Of course you can. You can even argue the expression of that love could be the critique itself. It may be more patriotic to protest the actions of your country than to criticize those who are protesting said actions, because the definition of “patriot” appears to be at odds with the very Right that allows for a democracy to exist. “I love my country, no matter how many black people are murdered by police, no matter how many schools are bombed by our bombs, no matter how many children are deliberately punished for their parents’ attempt to seek a better life, no matter…” That kind of thinking, that kind of indoctrination, is incredibly dangerous. Shaw said patriotism is thinking your country is better than the rest because it’s your country. That inevitably leads to the intolerance of people from other countries. From intolerance, the step to hatred isn’t far off. Then war. I imagine the Venn diagram of people who can’t handle football players protesting racial injustice and people who are vocal about how patriotic they are is a circle, or close to it. And therein lies the danger of patriotism.
Everyone reading this knows that a couple of years ago, a football player decided to exercise his Right of Free Speech in order to bring attention to the continued problem of racial injustice in America, and most of the self-described “patriots” in this country lost their damn minds. Confused about the subject of the protest (racial injustice, not the US of A – c’mon, Ghandi wasn’t protesting food during his hunger strike, smdh), upset about its message (yes, there are people in this country that desire racial injustice), or ignorant of the circumstances which allowed the player to protest (the history and meaning of the First Amendment, along with an absence of a legal/contractual requirement to stand during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner before an NFL game begins), these “patriots” did everything from spending their Sundays “tut-tutting” the players to outright refusing to watch the NFL. To a rational observer, that was craaaaaaaaazy. I mean, full-out, can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing crazy. And at its root… patriotism.
You don’t have to be patriotic to vote, participate in your community, and work towards common goals. You don’t have to be patriotic to read a newspaper, a history book, or a long-form article on an issue of the day. The sort of delusions about the superiority of one’s country and its leaders can only get in the way of making intelligent, independent decisions. Patriotism destroyed Rome. It destroyed Athens. It pits country against country, in a fight to the death. The best future we can hope for is one in which people love their families, friends, and neighbors and respect all human beings, but don’t waste their love on destructive and suicidal obsessions with national power. Love is too precious to spend on fuel for the raging fire that kills self-respect and independent thought and brings a curse upon the earth.
Look, the reason my wife asked me to join her in writing about this is because the football player is back, now with an advertising campaign, and, inevitably, there will be more players exercising their First Amendment rights this weekend. Well, not for nothing, the anthem spouts “rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air,” which symbolizes the military power of our country, and is surely not a worthy object of love, any more than, say, Hitler’s army was. When we hear the anthem, we can still delight in the thought of our “spacious skies and amber waves of grain,” which are worthy of love, but no more so than the natural beauty of other nations. Patriotism is a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it. We don’t need that.
I continue to admire the ideals in the name of which America was founded. I will continue to vote, pay taxes, obey the law, and fulfill my responsibilities as a citizen, and as a rational person, I understand my country is not perfect and does not deserve unwavering fealty from me. It falls to us to bring to life the ideals We, the People believe are important, and when we fall short, We, the People must strive to do what we can to form a more perfect union. Occasionally, that may require taking a knee in quiet protest. It is a quintessential American way forward.
Erin:
Erin here, again. As we close, I leave you with this thought: If you're involved in or overhear a conversation about the NFL and the silent protest, use the energy of that conversation to gauge how people feel about racial injustice, and the First Amendment. Shine the spotlight on the issue at hand, instead of buying into the white noise around it. Ask what patriotism means for issues that threaten our democracy like family separation at the border, reuniting those we have already separated, and demanding to know if our Commander in Chief is engaged in felonious behavior.
I'm looking forward to backing the Pack this weekend, and I hope you enjoy the freedom weekends bring...whether standing or kneeling.
I'm looking forward to backing the Pack this weekend, and I hope you enjoy the freedom weekends bring...whether standing or kneeling.
No comments:
Post a Comment