Do you love America?

yes, i am liberal and damn proud of it. yes, i belive george bush is the single worst thing to have ever happened to this nation. yes i feel the iraq war was a disaster of epic proportion. yes, i love america.
 
It's a tough question ... or a stupid one.

Not in any especially-distinctive way. I try to enjoy the fact that I am a human being, and since I must be a human being I try to enjoy the fact that I am an American.

But love? Well, what does that really mean? Does that mean I want to fuck America every night? Does that mean I want to hold its hand and nod and say, "Uh-huh. Isn't that interesting?"

Perhaps more effective than jokes would be the basis of the counterpoint:

WHAT is patriotism? Is it love of one's birthplace, the place of childhood's recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations? Is it the place where, in childlike naivety, we would watch the fleeting clouds, and wonder why we, too, could not run so swiftly? The place where we would count the milliard glittering stars, terror-stricken lest each one "an eye should be," piercing the very depths of our little souls? Is it the place where we would listen to the music of the birds, and long to have wings to fly, even as they, to distant lands? Or the place where we would sit at mother's knee, enraptured by wonderful tales of great deeds and conquests? In short, is it love for the spot, every inch representing dear and precious recollections of a happy, joyous, and playful childhood?

If that were patriotism, few American men of today could be called upon to be patriotic, since the place of play has been turned into factory, mill, and mine, while deafening sounds of machinery have replaced the music of the birds. Nor can we longer hear the tales of great deeds, for the stories our mothers tell today are but those of sorrow, tears, and grief ....

.... Gustave Hervé, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition--one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.

The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition. It is for that purpose that America has within a short time spent four hundred million dollars. Just think of it--four hundred million dollars taken from the produce of the people. For surely it is not the rich who contribute to patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land. We in America know well the truth of this. Are not our rich Americans Frenchmen in France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And do they not squandor with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American factory children and cotton slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism that will make it possible to send messages of condolence to a despot like the Russian Tsar, when any mishap befalls him, as President Roosevelt did in the name of his people, when Sergius was punished by the Russian revolutionists.

It is a patriotism that will assist the arch-murderer, Diaz, in destroying thousands of lives in Mexico, or that will even aid in arresting Mexican revolutionists on American soil and keep them incarcerated in American prisons, without the slightest cause or reason. (Goldman)
Click to expand...

• • •

It's all the same; only the names will change.
Every day it seems were wasting away.

(Bon Jovi)

• • •​

Emma Goldman's 1908 indictment of patriotism questions the concept's foundations, asserts its effects, and considers its cost in both economic and human value. And while we certainly cannot limit the notion of loving a country to various definitions of patriotism, it seems worthwhile to inquire as to what other basis for "love" there is. Sycophantic devotion? Skepticism and cynical opposition? What about violence on the basis that "This hurts me more than it will hurt you", and, "This is only because I love you"?

When I was a child, parents, teachers, and community at large sought to indoctrinate my generation into a patriotic love that was unquestioning. Unfortunately, there were about the foundation of that love conflicting values, and the only acceptable resolution to the conflict seemed to be that we should decide there is no conflict. If we consider the idea that the motto, "In God We Trust", stamped on our currency at the very least was a Cold War development intended to posit the United States' noble Christianity against the godless, evil Communists, we can highlight one of these conflicts. For I recall one of my father's arguments against Communism was to ask whether I wanted to be able to take care of myself or be obliged to take care of lazy people who just wanted to take advantage of me. The question aimed after the famous tenet, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The evil Communists, it was explained, would make me pay money to take care of everybody else, no matter how unworthy.

At the same time, though, many of my generation were being taken to church or pressed through "confirmation" indoctrination and rituals intended to seal our devotion to Christendom. We were encouraged to look at the U.S. as a Christian nation. Reagan loved God; the First Amendment vs. Heavy Metal fight that dominated so many developing consciences was cast in Christian terms (free speech ends when it offends someone else; read, "free speech ends when it offends Christian sensibilities", since the reverse--fulsome Christianity--was rewarded with supremacist presupposition); into the 1990s and the new century, the objection to the existence of homosexuals, on the one hand, and the objection to scientific education to the other both find their strongest roots in the American Christian experience. And yet, what was it about Communism that the argument found so repugnant? To each, from each. In the Communist context, this principle is hardly original. It does, in fact, have credible roots, especially if we are to accept the Christianity of the American cultural experience.

And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness. Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. (Acts 4.31-ff, RSV)
Click to expand...

What's really funny is that, as a young Lutheran student, we studied the Book of Acts in our confirmation curriculum, and just happened to skip this portion of the story.

It is hard to love something when you don't know what it is. It is hard to know what something is when the only consistency about its identity is that the components of identity conflict so greatly with the intended composite. When we look at our love for human beings, are we really expected to accept of each other massive inconsistency? Was Bill Clinton actually "faithful" to his wife? Does my former partner, the mother of my child, really never lie? I mean, when my friends and I say that I'm sober when I'm stoned, it's intended as a joke. But somehow I don't think people are joking when beating their wives or children and calling it love. I don't think people are joking when they argue a state of war is peace. I don't think people are joking when they argue that equality is best defined as supremacy. I don't think people are joking when they argue that freedom means you must be silent.

Maybe if we purported to be a Buddhist nation, such contradictions could be reconciled. But we don't, and they can't.

I absolutely adore the pitch I was given as a child. I'm still waiting, of course, to meet that America and say, "Hello. I love you."

Maybe someday.
____________________

Notes:

Goldman, Emma. "Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty". New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1908. See http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/goldman/aando/patriotism.html

"Book of Acts". The Bible, Revised Standard Version. National Council of Churches of Christ in America. See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5047239
​
 
desi said:
Do you?
Click to expand...

If you'll think about for just a minute, I hope you'll realize that the answers you get to that question will not be as informative as you probably hoped. That's because "love" and "America" mean different things to different individuals.

As for me, love is too strong a word. I have a great fondness for what America stands for - not for some lines drawn on a map. I'm deeply appreciative for the security and opportunities it has given me and the promises it offers to my children and their children. For those reasons, I joined the armed forces long ago and was prepared to die, if necessary, to protect those things for my family and everyone else's.

America, as an entity, has done many good things and many bad things. But so has pretty much every other nation under the sun. I would like for it to more good and less bad.

But I had the good fortune of having been born here instead of some third-world country where I might not have even survived the birth process itself. My children and grandchildren were also born here. So even though I'm no longer in the military, I will continue to do whatever I can to help protect this nation in an attempt to extend all those privileges and opportunities to all it's citizens living here and all those to come.
 
I love America on many levels. A a lad, I saw a lot of poverty and despair abroad, and the knowledge of the chance blessing of being born an American was much like the knowledge of having hit a very large lottery. As an amatuer political scientist, I am proud of the political innovations of our Founders, and I'm proud that there still survives today a popular hunger for democracy and open government in the USA. The more I travel the USA, the more I am astounded at the natural beauty and bounty we enjoy here. The more I anguish at our acute faults and perils, the more I want for us to avoid tragedy. Two emotions are incredibly strengthened through adversity: Love, and hate. Like a man who had many choices, trials, and criticisms, yet decided to live here anyway once said, "Love is all you need".
 
Last edited:
"I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility which will enable America to remain master of her power-to walk with it in serenity and wisdom, with self-respect and the respect of all mankind; a patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. These are words that are easy to utter, but this is a mighty assignment. For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." - Adlai Stevenson
 
desi said:
Do you?
Click to expand...
no . . . yes . . . uh, i'll SAY i love my country, but to actually love a country?
i believe we are one of the best, if not THE best, of the modern societies.
but i do consider myself a faithful patriot.
 
My country sucks, but it still is head and shoulders above any were else in the world, It is a beautiful land, full of opportunity, and riches, but it has the worst form of government on the face of the earth until you look at all of the others, there are many other places in the world that I would have live, but I have been to them and America is still the best place in the world to live, so I love my country above all other, and do my best to change it, in how ever small of a way to be worthy of the Love I have for the land of my Birth, so, Yes I love my Country, there is none other to compare.
 
If you are an american patriot with american tastes, you are going to love america and think it's the best no matter what else is out there.

It's like asking, 'do you love your family?'
 
No. I dislike police states.

All of the people who I know and who have worked in the USA say that the USA is just like the Soviet Union, only more civilized and they have extreme capitalism instead of extreme socialism.

Adding that it's probably the only way such a big and powerful country could be run.
 
Yes. And George Bush is not the worse thing that ever happened to America. Try the Civil War.
 
i'm lovin' it!

I participate in all greencard lotteries I can find on the [ENC]internet[/ENC] because my old visa to the [ENC]US[/ENC]A expired. Very unfair, because I cannot live in the greatest [ENC]natio[/ENC]n in the [ENC]universe[/ENC] and beyond besides [ENC]East Korea[/ENC] (obviously).
 
How many of your friends worked in both the USA and the Soviet Union? And please explain this analogy,because it makes no sense.
 
Ha! Good one. If you are talking about the native peoples. But, as for my relatives, you're quite wrong.
 
Avatar said:
No. I dislike police states.

All of the people who I know and who have worked in the USA say that the USA is just like the Soviet Union, only more civilized and they have extreme capitalism instead of extreme socialism.

Adding that it's probably the only way such a big and powerful country could be run.
Click to expand...

On what do you base your statement that the U.S. is a police state? Do you have some solid proof of that? If so, I'd like to see it AND see it compared to other countries that ARE police states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top