I recently read
an excellent piece by a friend who, as I did, served in the military during
the Cold War. The gist of the piece involves the difference between one's
"patriotic duties" as a person in uniform and that of a civilian member
of a civilly aggrieved minority at a
football game. His conclusion was that his responsibility as a man in uniform
was different than that of a civilian. He concluded with the observation that, as
a white male of the upper middle class, he respects the struggles of those less
privileged and supports their right to peaceful protest, compared to say,
marching, armed, onto a college campus with bad intent and fomenting physical
confrontation culminating in a death. (can you say Charlottesville?)
At this
juncture, I believe that it bears
mentioning that we in the USA, not uniquely, but in a minority worldwide, have
turned ordinary sporting events into shows of what have become almost mawkish
patriotic displays. Of course, this is also a manipulation by owners and
leagues to spur ticket sales. What I find interesting is that the more
inappropriate and ill advised the use and deployment of our military becomes,
especially over the last 20 years, the
more a certain segment foams at the mouth and repeats the totally inaccurate
"fighting for our freedom" mantra. What a gross inaccuracy that
statement represents!
No single life
wasted on Iraq was "fighting for our freedom." In like manner, as Ken
Burns is reaffirming in his current PBS Vietnam War series, not one of the 2
million plus (of all combatants) who died in Vietnam was "fighting for our
freedom," either. It is critical to
distinguish between what those military personnel were told the were there for
and why they were actually sent. Many a brave military member died in a cause
for which they had relatively little broad spectrum understanding. Moreover if
they had been well schooled in the history of the region, they might well have
thought very differently about being there at all. It is a massive emotional conflict and strongly
against human nature to be confronted with the proof that what one did in good
faith was in support of a worthless cause. We can see the results of this moral
awakening manifested in the
significantly increased number of PTSD cases and suicides among Vietnam and Mid-east
overseas adventure conflict participants.
I would be the
first to admit that I joined the US Navy in 1964 specifically to avoid getting
drafted and sent to Vietnam, a war I already at age 21, felt to be un-justified
and ill advised. Why? I was literate and intellectually curious. Yes, it's just
that simple. Having seen racial division spawned and amplified by such scum as
Strom Thurmond, and having been raised to know better, I was well aware that being
lied to by the national government was a real world possibility.
I think my curiosity re: SE Asia went all the
way back to a memory which is as clear today at age 74 as it was at age 8. That
recollection is of seeing a newsreel (yeah, they used to show World News before
the Saturday double feature westerns, and with a bad serial most times) depicting
and commenting on the French army's withdrawal in defeat from "French Indo
China." I had no idea what was happening, but, by age nineteen or twenty,
I had learned much more. Another part of that was the memory of the
Army-McCarthy (rabid anti-Communist rhetoric covering for blatant incompetence)
hearings on the television, the only time(s) I can ever recall my mom doing her
ironing in the living room, where the gigantic 23 inch TV lived in its 200
pound console.
Vietnam is a
difficult subject for my generation in general and was a bit uncomfortable to
teach to high school juniors, many of whom had relatives who had served in
Southeast Asia. The reason? A literate and critically thinking person needs
little more than objectivity and, to be transparent, some historical perspective
to see that the entire debacle in
southeast Asia was avoidable. Had we made the same overtures to Vietnam (not
our enemy in WWII) that we made to Japan
(definitely our enemy) we could have helped Vietnam build a strong friendly
economy in the 1950s and saved (literally) millions of lives, Vietnamese and
American.
Anti
-Communist hysteria, among men who should have known better, precluded any such
overtures. Ho Chi Minh's plea to Harry Truman to "not let the French steal
his country back" fell on deaf ears, as the Red Scare mentality was prevalent
among Republicans who had
"suffered" 13 years of FDR and were now saddled with the civil rights
supporting Harry S. Truman and willing to do or say almost anything to
recapture the White House. Truman, facing the certainty that accepting any
overture from Ho was political suicide, was forced to turn a deaf ear. What is
so frustrating about these events is that our actions directly contradicted our
own earlier position statements. The Atlantic Charter, agreed to by Churchill
and FDR called for a post war end to colonialism and the self determination of
these former colonies. In like manner, the United Nations charter does, as well. Ho referred to both of these
documents in his February, 1946, telegram to Truman. Truman
didn't answer and the rest, as they say, is history.
So, before you
froth at the mouth and throw about words like "patriotic" duty, try
this simple exercise: Consider that the definition is situational, and that loving
one's country has little to do with flag or military adventure. Season that
with the realization that maybe, just maybe, your flames of "outrage " are being fanned by a
malignant narcissist who is, himself, one of the least patriotic men ever to
hold the title of POTUS.
Not all Presidents are bad men. Truman and
Eisenhower and Kennedy certainly weren't, yet those three sowed the seeds of
the Vietnam war which LBJ liberally watered and Nixon reaped. Political considerations,
not "fighting for our freedom" were the basis for every decision they
made in that process, just as Bush 43's insane invasion of Iraq was. We can venerate
the actions of those who served, either by draft or voluntarily, while
accepting that, sometimes, they are, as are all of us, as much political victim
as aggressor. In truth, all these things
were done under the Star Spangled Banner. In the here and now, racial and in
truth social division also, is being
fueled by another President who is attempting to wrap his white supremacist
agenda in the same flag. The true
patriot lives to see his country be better, not worse. "Taking a knee"
to acknowledge that the improving nation's well being is significantly more important than soothing the ego of one orange man with the IQ of low fat yogurt is a patriotic act in and of itself.
Patriotism is the expression of a deep seated pride and love for the benevolent values and principles of ones country and its citizens.
ReplyDeleteNationalism is a primal, mob-like, feeling and belief that the country in which one resides comes first and foremost with little regard for the intrinsic values of its own society or other nations (e.g., something along the lines of the “Make America First” mentality).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete