The Last Refuge of Scoundrels
Apologia
Nanette has gently chastised me for having neglected In Flight for well -- over a month now, actually, she says looking a bit shamefaced. I have been doing some writing on a story which is possibly getting somewhere (my protagonists are now at the railway station even though they're not actually going to end up getting on the train because I have other plans in store for them), but otherwise I've been in a place of false starts and doubt.
So at the risk of being terribly divaesque, I thought I'd take Nanette's advice and repost a diary that I wrote earlier, albeit not the one she suggested (at least not right now). I wrote this about a year-and-a-half ago. It was my first diary on dKos, which I joined just after the 2004 election, and left during the Pie Wars. I've edited a little to clean up some particularly clumsy phrases, but haven't really touched the style or content. The former seems quite strange to me now, though if anything, I have become more convinced that patriotism is evil in the intervening time.
Anyway, enough already.
The Last Refuge of Scoundrels
Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:24:20 AM PDT
I am not a patriot. Soon after the towers fell -- I read Robert Jensen's essay, Saying Goodbye to Patriotism. It resonated like a church bell struck at close range. If you've not read it, you should.
I think the reason that the majority of U.S. voters decided to elect as their president a disingenuous, duplicitous, mass-murderer is because they are patriots. As patriots, they believe that the U.S. is the best nation on earth. There is nowhere else they would rather live. They wake up in the morning believing that to wake up American "is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth" ( Kerry, concession speech, 3/11/04 )
They believe that democracy is an essentially U.S invention and that the U.S.'s system of government, with its 'checks and balances' is by far and away the best of the world. Not only that, but they believe the American people are the best -- the kindest, the bravest, the most morally upright, the most freedom-loving people on the earth. Because of these things the U.S. should lead the world. Who better to provide good strong leadership? As a democratic acquaintance of mine wrote "Hey, If there's going to be an empire, I can't think of anywhere I'd rather have in charge than the U.S." They are patriots and proud of it.
I am not a patriot. Partly I'm spared that fate because I don't know where I'd be a patriot for. Live long enough as a foreigner and your home becomes everywhere and nowhere. I lived as a foreigner in the States, now I am a foreigner in the U.K. When I visit the country where I grew up my accent marks me as a foreigner there too. Friendly people in the supermarket say 'Oh! Is this your first trip to New Zealand? How are you liking it so far?"
But the Americans that voted for Bush are patriots. And I think many of the Americans who voted for Kerry would also call themselves patriots. They'd subscribe to the idea that the U.S. flag is an emblem of freedom, that the U.S. is -- despite its problems -- the best country in the world.
I think the root problem with the U.S. is that liberals and the left have seldom challenged the idea that patriotism is a virtue. They've seldom stood up and said 'patriotism is evil to its core, and must be torn out, root and branch.' More often, they've tried to gather the mantle of patriotism around themselves. "Dissent is patriotic," they have said. "Asking questions is patriotic." "Protesting is patriotic."
Sometimes, I'm sure, they've done so to reach out across political divides -- "Look," they say, "we're not so scary. We're patriots too." But more often, I think the claims to patriotism are sincere. They want to think of themselves as patriots, they want to apply the term to their works. As patriots, they are genuinely angered by Republican attempts to monopolise the term.
One of the first 'grown-up' books I ever read as a child was Watership Down, which despite its reputation for fluffiness (it's got rabbits!) is an essentially political book. I made several false starts before I could read the whole way through. I'd make it to the end of the first chapter -- the one that begins with Cassandra observing that the house reeks of death and ends with Fiver paralysed in nameless fear before a vision of blood-covered fields. But for me -- when I finally screwed up my courage and made it past the first chapter -- the most frightening part of that book remains the part where Hazel's little band of refugee rabbits discover that a warren that has offered them shelter has an evil secret: it is snared and their hosts have betrayed them. As they plan to avenge themselves by driving out the other rabbits and seizing their warren, Fiver rages at them, gibbering and raving: "We shall help ourselves to a roof of bones, hung with shining wires! Help ourselves to misery and death!"
That's what I think about patriotism -- it's evil to the poisonous core of its rotten heart. Its roof is made of bones, it reeks of burning flesh. Why should those of us on the left help ourselves to that?
Nanette has gently chastised me for having neglected In Flight for well -- over a month now, actually, she says looking a bit shamefaced. I have been doing some writing on a story which is possibly getting somewhere (my protagonists are now at the railway station even though they're not actually going to end up getting on the train because I have other plans in store for them), but otherwise I've been in a place of false starts and doubt.
So at the risk of being terribly divaesque, I thought I'd take Nanette's advice and repost a diary that I wrote earlier, albeit not the one she suggested (at least not right now). I wrote this about a year-and-a-half ago. It was my first diary on dKos, which I joined just after the 2004 election, and left during the Pie Wars. I've edited a little to clean up some particularly clumsy phrases, but haven't really touched the style or content. The former seems quite strange to me now, though if anything, I have become more convinced that patriotism is evil in the intervening time.
Anyway, enough already.
The Last Refuge of Scoundrels
Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:24:20 AM PDT
I am not a patriot. Soon after the towers fell -- I read Robert Jensen's essay, Saying Goodbye to Patriotism. It resonated like a church bell struck at close range. If you've not read it, you should.
I think the reason that the majority of U.S. voters decided to elect as their president a disingenuous, duplicitous, mass-murderer is because they are patriots. As patriots, they believe that the U.S. is the best nation on earth. There is nowhere else they would rather live. They wake up in the morning believing that to wake up American "is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth" ( Kerry, concession speech, 3/11/04 )
They believe that democracy is an essentially U.S invention and that the U.S.'s system of government, with its 'checks and balances' is by far and away the best of the world. Not only that, but they believe the American people are the best -- the kindest, the bravest, the most morally upright, the most freedom-loving people on the earth. Because of these things the U.S. should lead the world. Who better to provide good strong leadership? As a democratic acquaintance of mine wrote "Hey, If there's going to be an empire, I can't think of anywhere I'd rather have in charge than the U.S." They are patriots and proud of it.
I am not a patriot. Partly I'm spared that fate because I don't know where I'd be a patriot for. Live long enough as a foreigner and your home becomes everywhere and nowhere. I lived as a foreigner in the States, now I am a foreigner in the U.K. When I visit the country where I grew up my accent marks me as a foreigner there too. Friendly people in the supermarket say 'Oh! Is this your first trip to New Zealand? How are you liking it so far?"
But the Americans that voted for Bush are patriots. And I think many of the Americans who voted for Kerry would also call themselves patriots. They'd subscribe to the idea that the U.S. flag is an emblem of freedom, that the U.S. is -- despite its problems -- the best country in the world.
I think the root problem with the U.S. is that liberals and the left have seldom challenged the idea that patriotism is a virtue. They've seldom stood up and said 'patriotism is evil to its core, and must be torn out, root and branch.' More often, they've tried to gather the mantle of patriotism around themselves. "Dissent is patriotic," they have said. "Asking questions is patriotic." "Protesting is patriotic."
Sometimes, I'm sure, they've done so to reach out across political divides -- "Look," they say, "we're not so scary. We're patriots too." But more often, I think the claims to patriotism are sincere. They want to think of themselves as patriots, they want to apply the term to their works. As patriots, they are genuinely angered by Republican attempts to monopolise the term.
One of the first 'grown-up' books I ever read as a child was Watership Down, which despite its reputation for fluffiness (it's got rabbits!) is an essentially political book. I made several false starts before I could read the whole way through. I'd make it to the end of the first chapter -- the one that begins with Cassandra observing that the house reeks of death and ends with Fiver paralysed in nameless fear before a vision of blood-covered fields. But for me -- when I finally screwed up my courage and made it past the first chapter -- the most frightening part of that book remains the part where Hazel's little band of refugee rabbits discover that a warren that has offered them shelter has an evil secret: it is snared and their hosts have betrayed them. As they plan to avenge themselves by driving out the other rabbits and seizing their warren, Fiver rages at them, gibbering and raving: "We shall help ourselves to a roof of bones, hung with shining wires! Help ourselves to misery and death!"
That's what I think about patriotism -- it's evil to the poisonous core of its rotten heart. Its roof is made of bones, it reeks of burning flesh. Why should those of us on the left help ourselves to that?
So what's so terrible about patriotism? Here is its lingua franca: "I love my country. It's the best in the world. Its people are the best in the world. Its democracy and values are the best in the world. Our brave men and women in uniform are the best in the world and they deserve my support."
Deeply embedded in this is a kind of calculus that says 'American lives matter more.' If bravery, kindness and the love of freedom are American values, then they are not simply human values -- they're American because Americans are kinder and braver and more freedom-loving than anyone else. And if Americans are the most freedom-loving, then their freedom is the most important, because after all, us foreigners don't love freedom as much. And since Americans are better, so too will be their democracy, their government and its decisions. Other countries should just fall into line and do what they say because they are not as good as America. After all, how did Kerry put it again? To wake up American "is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth."
I know -- this is boring and repetitive. But I want to capture the tail-chasing nature of patriotism. Once you hold up that rose-tinted mirror of patriotism, you see only yourself, your nation, enlarged to take up the whole sky, reflected in its warm self-congratulatory glory. This mirror has a wondrous effect: every thing and everyone else is made invisible, marginal, not as important, a fly to be swatted, an annoyance to be eradicated. Patriotism takes you to the place where Americans will vote for a mass-murderer because his most recent mass murder wasn't primarily of Americans. Over 100 000 Iraqi civilians are dead, murdered on Bush's orders. If Bush had ordered 100 000 American citizens to be burned, buried alive, blown up and tortured, would he have been elected? But Iraqi lives aren't as important as American lives. They don't count.
And that's what patriotism does. It draws a line between people and says 'On this side of the line, people's lives, works, and ideas matter. On this other side, they do not.'
I am not a patriot. But I have heard its siren song. 'Sleep!' it cries, 'sink comfortably into torpor. Turn off your mind, your cold ruthless conscience, find surcease from despair, rest from rage, let your hard heart melt and heal. Let your head nod in agreement, look into our mirror and you won't have to see evil any more. Follow, and you won't be lonely, you will sing in sweet harmony instead of in your own out-of-tune discordant voice. Obey and you will no longer stand at bay, wondering where you will find strength to endure. We'll make you cosy and safe." I've heard that siren song, promoting 'unity,' 'coming together' and the 'healing of wounds.''Do the easy thing' it says 'Give in. Collude. Immerse yourself in our folksy, gosh shucksiness, find yourself in the homeland, remake yourself in our image'
But I am not a patriot. I will not set up house in that hall of bones.
[I wrote this on the evening of November 3rd. I've tidied up and edited/altered a little since then, but if you think my tone is angry here, it's because I'm angry.]
Deeply embedded in this is a kind of calculus that says 'American lives matter more.' If bravery, kindness and the love of freedom are American values, then they are not simply human values -- they're American because Americans are kinder and braver and more freedom-loving than anyone else. And if Americans are the most freedom-loving, then their freedom is the most important, because after all, us foreigners don't love freedom as much. And since Americans are better, so too will be their democracy, their government and its decisions. Other countries should just fall into line and do what they say because they are not as good as America. After all, how did Kerry put it again? To wake up American "is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth."
I know -- this is boring and repetitive. But I want to capture the tail-chasing nature of patriotism. Once you hold up that rose-tinted mirror of patriotism, you see only yourself, your nation, enlarged to take up the whole sky, reflected in its warm self-congratulatory glory. This mirror has a wondrous effect: every thing and everyone else is made invisible, marginal, not as important, a fly to be swatted, an annoyance to be eradicated. Patriotism takes you to the place where Americans will vote for a mass-murderer because his most recent mass murder wasn't primarily of Americans. Over 100 000 Iraqi civilians are dead, murdered on Bush's orders. If Bush had ordered 100 000 American citizens to be burned, buried alive, blown up and tortured, would he have been elected? But Iraqi lives aren't as important as American lives. They don't count.
And that's what patriotism does. It draws a line between people and says 'On this side of the line, people's lives, works, and ideas matter. On this other side, they do not.'
I am not a patriot. But I have heard its siren song. 'Sleep!' it cries, 'sink comfortably into torpor. Turn off your mind, your cold ruthless conscience, find surcease from despair, rest from rage, let your hard heart melt and heal. Let your head nod in agreement, look into our mirror and you won't have to see evil any more. Follow, and you won't be lonely, you will sing in sweet harmony instead of in your own out-of-tune discordant voice. Obey and you will no longer stand at bay, wondering where you will find strength to endure. We'll make you cosy and safe." I've heard that siren song, promoting 'unity,' 'coming together' and the 'healing of wounds.''Do the easy thing' it says 'Give in. Collude. Immerse yourself in our folksy, gosh shucksiness, find yourself in the homeland, remake yourself in our image'
But I am not a patriot. I will not set up house in that hall of bones.
[I wrote this on the evening of November 3rd. I've tidied up and edited/altered a little since then, but if you think my tone is angry here, it's because I'm angry.]
posted by dove at 11:28 pm
12 Comments:
I hope you'll be posting more of your past diaries/ writings Dove.
Y'know, after the recent kerfuffle on BT, all i've been able to think of is patriotism--or what does it mean to say that i am proud that I am an -------- (fill in the blank). So your diary is particularly resonant.
Why is pride in one's national identity an essential mark of one's makeup? I am Indian and yes, when I was a kid I believed that India was the best of all countries and sang along with all the other schoolkids when they warbled this song.
But I have seen and read and understood how India oppresses the smaller nations that surround it, the minorities that live within its borders, and the majority poor who have no access to avenues for advancement. The policies of its governments have no ethical basis that I can point to and feel good about. Yes, the Congress Party is the lesser of the evils since the Hindu fundamentalists scare the shit out of me, but that is really not saying much. (Won't bore you with wonkish history or policy lessons)
I like Indian poetry and music but i am not willing to say that they are the best. Bach and Thyagaraja--you don't get to choose between the two--you enjoy them both if you are lucky.
Gandhi was a force for good for the most part (though he did have pretty bigoted comments to make about the community I was born in) but to say that i am proud to be Indian because of Gandhi seems supremely ridiculous. Intertwined with Gandhi's great policies were great injustices--so yeah he wasn't a god or a saint.
So whats there to be proud of here?
I am trying desperately to figure out the cause of the outrage at BT and can only draw blanks.
poco
It has been eye-opening, hasn't it.
I wasn't surprised exactly, because I'd caught hints of that kind of sentiment before from some of the others involved -- the xenophobia as well as the personal attacks on DTF.
Like poco I suspect, I'm fuming. It reminds me of that moment that sometimes comes up in discussions about racism or sexism, when in the interests of being 'fair and balanced' we're told that the racism we should concern ourselves with is that directed against white people and the sexism we should care about is that levelled against men. Blechhh.
I thought your post in Sallycat's diary was so well put.
Don't worry about pressuring me! It's not a bad thing at all to be given a little nudge sometimes -- and it was wonderful for my ego to be the subject of a petition!
DTF - how do you manage to keep your patience?
(For some reason, your post has reminded me of a televangelist song in one of Terry Pratchett's books (Good Omens) -- "When I'm swept up by the Rapture, grab the wheel of my pickup" -- it's late here and random synapses are firing), but if you've not come across Terry Pratchett I think you would probably enjoy him for the most part.
poco,
Well -- they're better than the BJP (it would be pretty difficult to be worse I think) -- but I think I know a bit what you mean. My husband calls it the evil of two lessers, though usually he's referring to U.S. politics.
You wouldn't bore me with history or policy lessons BTW. Far from it.
Nanette -- I remember the post you mean. It was utterly ridiculous. I think you're right about fear -- I think that also in there is the fear of pursuing a moral argument to its logical conclusion, and having to change your life because of it, or else, think of yourself differently. Much easier and more comfortable to fall back into that ready made chorus.
Nanette, I think you are right---fear it is. What DTF does is knock over the bases of our assumptions, our unquestioned premises, and that can certainly lead to fear and insecurity. But to respond in such a filthy manner....sorry, I have not yet gotten over it.
They (at BT) pay lip-service to being citizens of the world--but ...
Not being coherent, just puzzled and immeasurably pissed off.
oh dove, I love the discworld series--am currently re-re-reading the Lancre novels. I want to be Granny Weatherwax when I grow up.
poco
Very nice writing, dove. You have a beautiful way with words.
Just a thought as someone who lurks at BT. DTF has never (as far as I know) revealed anything about his nationality, heritage, religion or race, so how could those who disagree with him be xenophobes? Just wondering.
Ductape,
You're my honorary grandfather. Grandfathers are supposed to feel at home, no? And while some may have labelled you 'brevity-impaired' others think that sometimes concision, like consistency, can be a hobgoblin of little minds.
So -- be loquacious, garrulous, concise, blunt, or terse as occasion and whim demand. And be those things here.
For what it's worth, I hate what's happening to you over there, not least because I think some of the invective directed at you should by rights be coming my way and because I haven't taken my share of that flak.
Respectfully, DTF, I agree with internet security and I too try to maintain a low profile. But my point is if a commenter does not know a certain person's race, nationality or religion how is it possible to be accused of being a xenophobe when he/she disagrees with the poster.
Having read the thread you speak of and the charges of your being arrogant, I can see where that belief comes from. You possess a moral certitude that is disquieting in it's breadth.
I could not help but think that the last alleged audio tape from OBL said some of the same things you were saying in that thread, mainly that average Americans are responsible for the decisions by our dear leaders because we elected him. Both of you give no weight to the 48 million of us who did not vote for him.
If we are to blame for the deeds of Bush & Co, would it also be fair to say that, if you are indeed Muslim, that you are responsible for the actions of Islamic terrorists like OBL who, like it or not, is one of the most prominent faces of Islam?
Just as I would never blame you for the actions of Islamic terrorists, so I am not surprised that many in that thread took issue with the arrogant way you painted everyone with the same brush.
Again, I respect you tremendously, and I have read a great deal both at BT and at your own blog over the past year.
spinster,
"Just a thought as someone who lurks at BT. DTF has never (as far as I know) revealed anything about his nationality, heritage, religion or race, so how could those who disagree with him be xenophobes? Just wondering."
Let me try and tackle that question. Probably in 'brevity-impaired' fashion.
Part of me wants to agree with DTF that actually, it's not about him per se. Or at least it's not about his identity -- although at least indirectly, it probably is about his political commitments.
I think what makes one xenophobic is not that one disagrees with a particular person --or even that one disagrees with a person of different ethnicity or citizenship from oneself (or whatever the dimension of difference may be).
What matters is the content of the disagreement -- what the disagreement is about.
What makes one xenophobic is not the identity of one's interlocutor, but one's expression of xenophobic opinions, one's revelation of xenophobic assumptions and/or behaviours -- and particularly such expressions from a position of relative structural power. Which might seem to bring ones interlocutor straight back in, but doesn't necessarily: much of the most racist behaviour I've observed, for example, has been among white people who thought they were 'among their own.'
All of which is another way of saying that people are moral agents.
But being contrarian and awkward by nature, part of me wants to disagree with DTF and with what I've just said and say that actually -- a lot of it (or at least a lot of why he gets so much invective sent his way and I don't, when so far as I can tell our political commitments and beliefs overlap substantially) is about his identity.
Or rather, what people infer about his identity from his political commitments and his writing.
And one can make inferences. I certainly have. The image I have of DTF is of a man, about the right age to be my grandfather, Muslim, almost certainly not white (my guess would be part of the diaspora from the Indian sub-continent, but it's not a confident guess), living somewhere in the U.S. either as a citizen or as a permanent resident.
My inferences may be quite mistaken, but I suspect I'm not the only person to have made them.
And I also suspect that part of why (despite what I take to be fairly similar political convictions) DTF gets targeted personally in a way that I don't there has to do with the inferences people make about our respective identities.
Very eloquent and I agree with most of it. But the reason DTF is met with such invective is that he is confrontational and condescending in his manner.
Most of the time I agree with him and am in awe of his gift for word-writing. But in this one thread, on this one topic he was rude and insulting and was met with the same in return.
Well poco -- I think I found a new sig.
"Refusing to vote for the greater of two evils is not an adequate alibi"
And I think you need to write longer comments more often.
DTF
"So most of it is not about me, obviously the eagerness to obtain personal information about me is about me in a way, but still only symbolically.
"
Hmmm. I think you're probably right.
Post a Comment
<< Home