One night recently, while driving through upstate New York,
I listened to an AM radio dialogue in which the participants attempted to
assert that democrats were, by definition un-American because they fought for
things such as gun registration and more forgiving immigration and refugee
screening protocols. The host of the show insisted that the proposals and
platforms favored by Democrats were against the constitution and the values it
espouses. From this he inferred that Democrats didn’t really like America and
that they secretly yearned for America’s downfall.
I wanted to shout at the radio. But what would that accomplish? Even if I could get this particular radio show host one-on-one, and refute his reasoning, challenge his facts, would it put a dent in the kind of thinking that encourages and hardens the current political divide? I’m an African-American who has lived in Canada for a quarter century. About a dozen years ago, I became a Canadian citizen, so enjoy dual citizenship. It’s very interesting to me how Canadians too exhibit their own brand of nationalism. But while love of country is as much a part of being Canadian as is it of being American, it isn’t expressed here in terms of competitive superiority. And pride of county here is rarely expressed in term designed to define others out. To the contrary, Canada explicitly touts its immigrant origins and celebrates is multiculturalism as a source of strength and pride. In a way, being Canadian is about being a citizen of the world, just as, increasingly, being American – as defined by some – seems to be about renouncing the world.
What disturbs me most is the argument that certain stances are anti-American merely because they challenge an aspect of American life, politics or culture, and make arguments that alternatives would be better. That they refute the baseless claim that America is the GOAT – the Greatest of ALL TIME. It’s a gutless, distorted and manipulative way to argue politics, because it seeks to invalidate an opponent’s very right to have an independent thought. It falls in line with that “Love it or Leave it” rationale, which suggests that the price of citizenship is to give up all right to criticize.
But, of course, democrats and progressives love our country. We love our parents, too. And our kids, the town we were raised in, and the schools is which we learned, grew up and developed our first friendships. If asked, we might respond that they were each the very best possible, the best ever, that no one has ever had it so good. But would we actually believe that? Believe it as an absolute, irrefutable reality? Would we condemn siblings, classmates, fellow hometowners, who had different experiences and therefore different judgements about family, school or hometown?
No. Most of us will understand that, as much as we love our parents, there were not perfect. We are capable of recognizing and even pointing out their faults, while still asserting that we’d never give them up for any other. With our kids, we will go even further, recognizing that it is a duty to actively find fault, so as to correct and improve. It doesn’t prevent us from claiming them as irrefutably our own, never to be disowned nor denied.
We should be able to understand that we ourselves are part of that which we criticize, not separate from it and judging from some unaffected place. And hopefully, we can also know acceptance is part of this process of fault-finding and improving. Because only when we’ve accepted the wrongs, and know them in their detail and specificity, can we do what’s necessary to overcome them, and to counteract the damage they have caused.
So why are we Americans so stupid and rigid about how we express love of country? Why must every leader proclaim that America is the greatest country on Earth, when it is so clear that, in so many respects, we are not the country we aspire to be, and that we fall so short of our ideals?
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-american-economy-is-rigged/)
Our citizens are not the healthiest, nor the best educated, though we’d like them to be. Our cities are not the cleanest, safest nor the best managed, though we’d like that to be the case. Way too many of our citizens are in jail, and way too many others are stuck in poverty. We consume and waste vastly more of the world’s resources than is defensible by any rationale, and we struggle even to be aware of this because it challenges the very basis of our economy and our foreign policy. There is so much about the United States that belies any rating resembling ‘greatest’, yet we cling to this label as to a life raft.
Personally, I think it’s a sad and debilitating aspect of America’s role in the world, that we are so locked into proclaiming ours as “the Greatest Nation on Earth”. And that we are so quick to become viciously defensive when one of our own suggests that other countries have us beat on one criteria or another, and that we might learn from them. I see this as a fault of Republicans and others on the right, who try to claim love of country as something of theirs alone, and as a filter to determine whose blood runs red, white & blue enough. But it’s also a fault of some Democrats and others on the left, who shy away from patriotic identifiers as interchangeable with the kind of nationalism that is little more than blind chauvinism.
But love of country need not mean that one sees no fault, that one holds one’s own as inherently better than others. Rather, it should be a marker of commitment to do the hard work necessary to raise us ever closer to the level of the ideals we claim, but never have and never can fully reach – such being the nature of life and reality.
GOAT debates are pointless, though entertaining and potentially edifying. But they’re best confined
to the realms of sports and entertainment, where they are an eternal staple. Was Muhammed Ali a greater fighter than Joe Louis or Sugar Ray Robinson? Who can say. It’ll never be answered definitively. But at least those who engage in such debates bother to come armed with records and statistics. Anyone who showed up to such a debate and proclaimed that their hero was the best merely because he hailed from their home town would be ignored or dismissed or ridiculed. And rightly so.
I wanted to shout at the radio. But what would that accomplish? Even if I could get this particular radio show host one-on-one, and refute his reasoning, challenge his facts, would it put a dent in the kind of thinking that encourages and hardens the current political divide? I’m an African-American who has lived in Canada for a quarter century. About a dozen years ago, I became a Canadian citizen, so enjoy dual citizenship. It’s very interesting to me how Canadians too exhibit their own brand of nationalism. But while love of country is as much a part of being Canadian as is it of being American, it isn’t expressed here in terms of competitive superiority. And pride of county here is rarely expressed in term designed to define others out. To the contrary, Canada explicitly touts its immigrant origins and celebrates is multiculturalism as a source of strength and pride. In a way, being Canadian is about being a citizen of the world, just as, increasingly, being American – as defined by some – seems to be about renouncing the world.
What disturbs me most is the argument that certain stances are anti-American merely because they challenge an aspect of American life, politics or culture, and make arguments that alternatives would be better. That they refute the baseless claim that America is the GOAT – the Greatest of ALL TIME. It’s a gutless, distorted and manipulative way to argue politics, because it seeks to invalidate an opponent’s very right to have an independent thought. It falls in line with that “Love it or Leave it” rationale, which suggests that the price of citizenship is to give up all right to criticize.
But, of course, democrats and progressives love our country. We love our parents, too. And our kids, the town we were raised in, and the schools is which we learned, grew up and developed our first friendships. If asked, we might respond that they were each the very best possible, the best ever, that no one has ever had it so good. But would we actually believe that? Believe it as an absolute, irrefutable reality? Would we condemn siblings, classmates, fellow hometowners, who had different experiences and therefore different judgements about family, school or hometown?
No. Most of us will understand that, as much as we love our parents, there were not perfect. We are capable of recognizing and even pointing out their faults, while still asserting that we’d never give them up for any other. With our kids, we will go even further, recognizing that it is a duty to actively find fault, so as to correct and improve. It doesn’t prevent us from claiming them as irrefutably our own, never to be disowned nor denied.
We should be able to understand that we ourselves are part of that which we criticize, not separate from it and judging from some unaffected place. And hopefully, we can also know acceptance is part of this process of fault-finding and improving. Because only when we’ve accepted the wrongs, and know them in their detail and specificity, can we do what’s necessary to overcome them, and to counteract the damage they have caused.
So why are we Americans so stupid and rigid about how we express love of country? Why must every leader proclaim that America is the greatest country on Earth, when it is so clear that, in so many respects, we are not the country we aspire to be, and that we fall so short of our ideals?
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-american-economy-is-rigged/)
Our citizens are not the healthiest, nor the best educated, though we’d like them to be. Our cities are not the cleanest, safest nor the best managed, though we’d like that to be the case. Way too many of our citizens are in jail, and way too many others are stuck in poverty. We consume and waste vastly more of the world’s resources than is defensible by any rationale, and we struggle even to be aware of this because it challenges the very basis of our economy and our foreign policy. There is so much about the United States that belies any rating resembling ‘greatest’, yet we cling to this label as to a life raft.
Personally, I think it’s a sad and debilitating aspect of America’s role in the world, that we are so locked into proclaiming ours as “the Greatest Nation on Earth”. And that we are so quick to become viciously defensive when one of our own suggests that other countries have us beat on one criteria or another, and that we might learn from them. I see this as a fault of Republicans and others on the right, who try to claim love of country as something of theirs alone, and as a filter to determine whose blood runs red, white & blue enough. But it’s also a fault of some Democrats and others on the left, who shy away from patriotic identifiers as interchangeable with the kind of nationalism that is little more than blind chauvinism.
But love of country need not mean that one sees no fault, that one holds one’s own as inherently better than others. Rather, it should be a marker of commitment to do the hard work necessary to raise us ever closer to the level of the ideals we claim, but never have and never can fully reach – such being the nature of life and reality.
GOAT debates are pointless, though entertaining and potentially edifying. But they’re best confined
to the realms of sports and entertainment, where they are an eternal staple. Was Muhammed Ali a greater fighter than Joe Louis or Sugar Ray Robinson? Who can say. It’ll never be answered definitively. But at least those who engage in such debates bother to come armed with records and statistics. Anyone who showed up to such a debate and proclaimed that their hero was the best merely because he hailed from their home town would be ignored or dismissed or ridiculed. And rightly so.
No comments:
Post a Comment