On Patriotism:
“You hate America, don’t you?” she said.
“That would be as silly as loving it,” I said. “It’s impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn’t interest me. It’s no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can’t think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies. I can’t believe that they mark the end or the beginning of anything of real concern to a human soul. Virtues and vices, pleasures and pains cross boundaries at will.”
This has been a quote I have been fond of for most of my life. The author was a WWII Veteran that was captured by the Nazi’s and held prisoner in Dresden. He was a POW during the bombing of Dresden.
Here are a few direct quotes from this man who fought for the freedoms of the United States:
“By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East?” he wrote. “Their morale, like so many bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.”
“I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened, though, is that it has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d’etat imaginable. And those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka ‘Christians,’ and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities,or ‘PPs.’”
This American author praised men such as Eugene Debs and Trotsky. (Both Socialists.)
The author in question is Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (or Kurt Vonnegut). The initial quote is from Mother Night published in 1961. The second and third quotes are from articles and interviews in more contemporary times.
What I think is telling is how this author from Indiana that fought in World War II makes comments that are seen today as seditious and “unpatriotic.” Instead of singing the praises of men and women like Mr. Vonnegut, we have a large amount of “Patriotic” people singing the praises of Sarah Palin and Dick Armey.
In the meantime, a large portion of the bottom 80% of America are unemployed. There is oil filling the Gulf and marine life is being killed at an unprecedented rate. Local economies in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and many other states in the region have been obliterated. North Korea continues to have its temper tantrums begging for attention. Two wars are raging in the Middle East and an end does not seem to be on the horizon. And health care for the bottom 80% of the United States is below the average of most Developed countries.
On top of this, Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle makes a comment that unemployed people are “spoiled” and “lazy.” Likewise, Rand Paul made a more recent comment that people on unemployment should just take jobs that pay less than they desire.
Sharron Angle also made comments about how Conservatives should pick up arms if they do not win their elections, or get their desired results.
It is like the same rhetoric that is deployed about Health Care Reform. Barack Obama campaigned on a platform for Health Care Reform. President Obama won the election with 53% of the vote. How does this mean that “majority of Americans are against Health Care Reform”? Or do we just spin it, because there are a lot of Americans that are not happy with the Reform Bill because the President had to compromise with the party that did not win as many seats as the President’s party?
This is not Patriotism, it is Blind Nationalism.
It is just like the spin Sarah Palin puts in her comments. This is a woman that has routinely mocked the President and other persons for being “Community Organizers.” And now, she is using the same tactics the “community organizers” utilized. Sarah, how many Facebook status updates and Tweets on Twitter did you do today? Well, the one thing I will give the Tea Party Movement: It is not a real grassroots movement.
When you have speakers making $100,000 to speak, and organizations like FreedomWorks organizing for you, nothing could be less “grassroots.” But that is the agenda they are following.
Paul Mooney made a comment not long ago about how it was the youth of America that elected President Obama into office. He pointed out that the younger generation are tired of all the bullshit of black/white, democrat/republican, rich/poor – and they want “Change.” They organized and mobilized and sent a clear message to the world: We don’t want the old system of elitist white males making all the decisions for everyone. (Whether or not you agree that President Obama is really much of a Change is beside the point; the vote was for exactly that.)
Now the Conservatives and the Tea Party Movement and the Libertarians are utilizing these same methods. Just like how the Tea Party Movement supporters decry the “socialist libs of the 1960s that want to destroy America” but turn around and use tactics developed by the protestors of the 1960s, they are using the same tactics of the movement that swept President Obama into office. What amazes me is how they continually denounce the methods they are using. And then, they claim to be “Patriotic” on top of all of that.
What could be more unpatriotic then inciting those that lose an election to “take up arms”? Or claiming parts of the Constitution are “unconstitutional”? What is more unpatriotic then verbally assaulting Congress members who are entering to vote on a bill a minority disagrees with? Proposing tax systems that benefit the wealthy?
These are not methods used by the “Libs” that the New Right claim are UnAmerican, they are tactics used by dictators and totalitarian political movements in Africa, Latin America and South East Asia.
Honestly, I could care less about patriotism. What I dislike is being fed lies or attempts of deceit. By denouncing this “false patriotism,” which is really blind nationalism, I am not making any claims as to whom is really a “patriot.” That is likely because I don’t care who is a patriot. I do care who claims to be a patriot when the reality is that nothing could be farther from the truth.
One could state that Kurt Vonnegut was not a patriot. But you cannot overlook the fact that he fought in the US Military during WWII and was captured in Europe and held prisoner in Dresden. He contributed to the United States on many levels. He was not advocating picking up arms when his side lost an election.
When asked in 2003 about how he was doing, Vonnegut responded: “I’m mad about being old and I’m mad about being American. Apart from that, OK.“
Hyena,
Such honest comtempt for America and patriotism – I am delighted to read it so plainly expressed. And by America, of course, I mean that America of the 50′s; the America in which overall, Black’s faired significantly better than they ever did afterwards.
You, of course, take much umbrage at the segregated lunch counters in a region that Blacks DECIDED to remain in. When they decided there were no jobs in Detroit they moved in droves to Texas; so Blacks, believe it or not, have free will.
Now to rubes like myself, well, we measure how Blacks faired then and now by the Black prison population, the many times more that Blacks were brought up with a father (which happens to correlate amazingly well with them staying in or out of prison). We use the measure of Black unemployment and marriage stats (among blacks it was 70% as opposed to the 10-15% it is now).
Oh well, I guess as to what matters, to each his own.
To each his own. At least that’s how we’d like it to be -you know that whole state’s rights thing that you (as did Hitler, in Mein Kampf) have such an issue with. Or back to that divided America thing? (You did admit we have so little in common).
Anyway, for now I won’t bother obliterating the many unsupportable conclusions you’ve reached in your comment for they have practically zero to do with my comment.
The only point of my comment was to educate you regarding the misunderstanding of the quote that you so prominently plaster on your blog – the utter irony of your misusing the quote of Johnson, who so valued patriotism, to try to insult patriotism.
But as I said earlier, please keep it. It serves as a reminder to all that leftists understand so little of history, context, tradition – it’s what makes it possible for them to remain leftists.
And as for your reply to me, as usual it shows that you mostly do not address the major point. But perhaps I am judging you too harshly. Perhaps you just don’t get the point.
The contempt for American patriotism, do you mean my contempt or that of Kurt Vonnegut Jr.?
“Oh well, I guess as to what matters, to each his own.”
Yes, some people look at equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law as much more important measures of quality of life.
If you measure quality of life by prison population, then the United States has the worst quality of life in the world – with a staggering 756 people per 100,000 incarcerated, follow by the Russian Federation with 611. (China has proportionally lower incarceration rates… about 1/3 of the United States population in prison, and yet China has 1/3 of the world’s population.)
Really, all of those things you point out go back to what I said about a month ago… “correlation does not imply causation.” Yes, the numbers of African Americans incarcerated has steadily increased as freedoms and opportunities have been given… but why is that? Why are narcotics laws applied with racial disparities? What are the amount incarcerated regarding drug laws? What percentage are Black Americans? What does this do to employment opportunities and marriage rates? (Notice I gave no answers, and only asked questions?)
Silly me, thinking be delegated to second class citizenship status deteriorates quality of life. Funny, though… you claim the Black population decided to stay in regions (that they owned homes in) where they were treated unfairly… can we apply that to the Whites that are upset with the Chicano population that is encroaching on their property? Why can’t they leave?
I failed to see how I misused the quote… I do think maybe you did not read all of what I wrote. Johnson valued patriotism and abhorred “blind nationalism.” He also loathed those who used “patriotism” as a guise for personal profit and selfish means. How is this irony that I use this in the context I have used it? Because people calling themselves “Tea Party Patriots” tend to go against the rights afforded int he Constitution because of their personal gains? How is that not appropriate for this quote from Samuel Johnson?
Well, what I see is a failure of understanding on this Libertarian front. I have read Ayn Rand and understand Objectivism… but I fail to see it applied in anything you have posted. Selective use of history? Look no farther than your comments about the “Founding Fathers” that signed the Treaty of Tripoli (stating the United States is NOT a Christian Nation) or applying Samuel Johnson to American Patriotism, when he stated it would be “glorious” to see the Native Americans rise up and slaughter the British and French colonists… and how he wanted to see the “Negro” of the “West Indies” rise up and liberate themselves from their overseers (yes, he looked at Black Africans as people). And yet, I pointed out that I do not share all of his sentiments, as any objectivist perspective would demand. He was a Tory that supported rigid class division and aristocracy over Liberal Democracy.
Well, what was the point? That I understand Samuel Johnson and that I do not only have a “Liberal” education as your consistent ad hominem attacks insinuate? Or that I called Dick Armey and Sarah Palin scoundrels?
One more thing:
To each his own. At least that’s how we’d like it to be -you know that whole state’s rights thing that you (as did Hitler, in Mein Kampf) have such an issue with. Or back to that divided America thing? (You did admit we have so little in common).
Hitler also opposed smoking of tobacco in any form. Stalin supported the right to smoke. Does that mean that Hitler was a “Liberal” and Stalin was a “Conservative”? Or was this just an irrelevant comment meant to insinuate a causality that does not exist?
The whole “State’s Rights” thing that I have issue with is because of the Constitution.
Article VI, Clause 2:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Also Amendment 14, Section 1, Clause 2:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
So, if the States-Rights violate the Constitution, they are in violation of the Law of the United States of America.
What kind of Patriot would want to violate the foundation of the very law that created the polity in which they love so much?
America is divided and seemingly irreconcilable. But I’m really beginning to feel that this is because of the “scoundrels” that are leading the New Right into a spiral of fascism and blind nationalism (which Samuel Johnson deplored).
Hyena,
So your fondest quote opens ridiculing a love of America. But you and Vonnegut are miles apart. Right? Pinning your distaste for America and patriotism on Vonnegut is quite lame – especially since you chose that hate-America-first type quote to end your post. Why? because you disagreed with it? Yeah, right.
The point is that Samuel Johnson was famously, a most ardent supporter of his nation – a patriot of the highest order. Yet anti-nationalist, anti-patriot, anti-American leftists, like yourself, routinely use the quote to demean patriotism when that is the practical opposite of the truth.
Re why Blacks fared so much worse after the 60′s:
You say you’re only asking questions. Why is that? Isn’t Marxism suppose to explain this sort of thing for you?
I’ll give you a clue and it’s not the freedom that did them in. If you offer material incentives to not marry or stay married, then the people who culturally are the least invested in the institution of marriage are the ones that are going to be the most affected by the incentives. That’s what welfare for unwed mothers did to the Black community. Black males, out of a job or in a marital conflict, told themselves that leaving the house was fine since their family would be fine. And Black females didn’t need to make sacrifices to hold on to their husbands.
Furthermore, if the men, appointed by liberals to be the ‘black leadership’, keep telling you, as a Black, that all the cards are stacked against you so that you can’t succeed, well then why should you bother trying – especially since you’ve been made to feel that you deserve all the handouts you can get. It was all part of Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Sociey’.
Of course, Black Christians with more deeply held beliefs were less affected by the material incentives and less affected by Jesse Jackson’s, et al, B.S..
Of course as a Marxist, you’re not into that human nature thing, the incentive thing, the responsibility thing, the cultural difference thing (let alone the racial thing that Marx was into). So this pretty obvious stuff that I just said will need to be controverted. Time to start internet searches for the really creative ‘guilty’ white intellectual B.S. that can blame whites for how blacks fared even worse after the sixties.
Oh finally, about that patriotic American stuff that, as you say, you ‘Honestly don’t care about’:
A Happy 4th of July to you!
I was just trying to clarify, if you held the WWII POW in contempt, just me, or both of us.
That line in Mother Night I find to be so brilliant speaks volumes. That’s why I am particularly fond of it. It points to the fact that humanity is much more than invisible and imaginary boundaries that other men have created. It points to the illegitimate use of power that the Anarchists always speak about. And it doesn’t speak of hate… because, quite honestly … hating an imaginary thing is as silly as loving it.
I don’t see where I used any of Johnson’s words to demean patriotism, only profiteers that use the guise of patriotism. I may be anti-Nationalist, but I do not see any anti-American sentiments in that which I write. Is it anti-American to believe that the Constitution and the Law are the foundation of American politics? Or is it anti-American to want America to be the best it can be?
I find the whole “Right vs. Left” thing to be a bit fallacious in itself. President G.W. Bush once said, “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier…just so long as I’m the dictator.” And it was President Kennedy that said, “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” (I’m not claiming either one more “patriotic” than the other, but that both have/had a love for their country, from both parties.)
That last line there was very telling. Why would one suppose to only turn to Marxism for answers? How objective is that? Some answers can be found in Liberalism, Anarchism, Marxism, Socialism, Feudalism, Corporatism and Fascism. It really depends on the question. And using Marxism to directly resolve issues from the 1960′s and later is much like trying to figure out what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about “hands free driving laws.”
I just want to point out that anti-miscegenation laws were not rescinded until 1967.
Where is the evidence of this? To my knowledge, although the numbers are disproportionate, the whole “welfare family” thing was really not as much a reality as politicians made it out to be. The reality is that most single mothers on welfare since the 1980′s have been on for less than 2 years. And the percentage of black single-mothers on welfare is in the single digits as well. I will agree, though, that many of the social implications of the Civil Rights movement have been intricate… as Civil Rights were passed on to non-Whites, other “rules” were passed to cause a de facto restriction of freedom and opportunity to Black Americans.
I will concede, in the spirit of honesty, that the American Liberals have, more often then not, made situations worse with their attitudes. I have had
quotequite a few major disagreements with the Liberals, that their patronizing attitudes towards minorities is racist in itself.That said, what if all the cards are stacked against you? Should you ignore it?
Fortunately for Black America, in the new Millennium, American racial hatred has been more focused on Chicanos and those of Middle Eastern descent.
When you end your statement like this, is it a practice of Jonah Goldber’s reductio ad absurdum argument?
If Black Christians were less affected, then how can the other 5% of Black Americans be of any real concern in the previous issues aforementioned?
This is perplexing as well. Since Marx and Marxism are pretty much humanist in nature. How can one be humanist and not into human nature, incentives, responsibility and cultural differences? On top of that, was that an admission that cultural differences might belie all of the previous comments that dictated (social) racial classification was indicative of behavior?
I do not really need to do an internet search for reasons why white society is to blame for how blacks fared worse after the Civil Rights movement. (Although, I still maintain that “worse” is a loaded and subjective term.) But, then I also have to delineate how “White society” does not mean every, single, individual White person in America; just the dominants in society as a whole.
I really do not care much about all that patriotic stuff, though patriotism does not bother me… until it crosses into that
realrealm of ethnic nationalism, blind nationalism and fascism. Personally, I’ve never been one to get attached to symbolism and imagery. Watching the news tonight, they reported how a flag on the shoulder of the highway was painted over. Arnold is angry about it. I was thinking it was much ado about nothing. We still have the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. We still have a representative democracy with checks and balances. We still have a government that rules with consent of the governed. It was not defaced or made into a seditious political statement. But I guess I can understand why some people were concerned.I also never really celebrated holidays much on my own, but I understand that they are important to others.
Happy 4th of July to you, too.