The results of the recent mid-term elections reminded me of something that happened one day at work, back in early June 2010; I was unexpectedly exposed to the International Baccalaureate Program (IB). The individual introducing me was a friendly coworker who was incensed about the program and approached me as if it was understood that I would be, or at least should be incensed, too. I informed him that I had no knowledge of the program, so he presented me with a “letter to the editor” from the local newspaper. The letter vilified the IB as a tool of conspirators against the United States of America. Given the public displays of hatred we’ve seen since Obama’s election in 2008, and especially in the past year leading up to the mid-terms elections, I think the letter, as well as my coworker’s reactions, are perfect examples of the current American psyche and breakdown.
As I started to read the long list of complaints by the letter’s author, Ms. Garcia, I was possessed by a mind biased by what had been said by my coworker. However, reading the points of the letter, one by one, I gradually became disillusioned, even saddened, by what I read. Point by point, I found myself in disagreement with both, Ms. Garcia and my friendly coworker. I found their inability to effectively incorporate logical conclusions into their arguments disconcerting, discouraging, and sadly typical of right-wing mentality. I actually found myself baffled over how they are able to express, without embarrassment, their disagreements with certain concepts of the IB. As this revelation gradually beset me, little by little I found my mind whirling with a number of questions.
Who are Americans? What is America? Is it a religion? Is it a dogma? Is it a republic? Is it a nation? What is a nation? Is it a geographical location? Is it a belief? Is America one nation?
A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government.
A group of people sharing “culture, ethnicity and language” does not, in my view, accurately describe Americans, and it seems clear to me at this point that Americans are not a single group of people “seeking its own independent government.” So what does define Americans?
While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference.
A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.
A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.
There are nations without States. For example, the Kurds are stateless people.
http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm
So a “State” can be a “country” and a “country” can be a “State” and we can have a “nation-state”, but a “nation” refers primarily to people, to human beings, with or without a state. How should Americans be defined?
Being the skeptic that I am, I naturally did my own research on the IB and found that Ms. Garcia had thoroughly misrepresented virtually every point she presented to support her position. Her delusional worldview is chilling because it clearly represents the worldview of a large segment of Americans. Because of the length of Ms. Garcia’s letter, which enumerates 15 specific points of complaint, I have included the link to the “letter to the editor” online for those who would like to read it in its entirety, but I will focus only on several excerpted points, here, which extraordinarily represent the American delusion to which I refer. I recommend reading the entire letter for a more real-world context and color added to the mindset I find so chilling.
Ms. Garcia’s point #1 was, “Concepts, not facts are emphasized”.
During my later conversation with my coworker, he, too, referenced facts, saying that “liberals seem unable to understand facts.” My response was simply that people who view the world as Ms. Garcia does are incapable of grasping more complex “concepts” and this is why America is currently in a downward spiral. Understanding complex concepts requires knowledge of facts and the ability to apply logic in analyzing relevant facts thereby understanding concepts. Interestingly, though, Ms. Garcia presents only distortion of facts in her complaints.
Complaint #2 was: “The program teaches that truth is relative as noted in the IB mission statement.”
Facts are facts; the IB mission statement does not, in FACT, state that truth is relative. It states, and I quote: “These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.” One is left wondering about Ms. Garcia’s agenda, or her ability to derive logical conclusions from written material – and facts – once one recognizes her blatant misrepresentation of “facts”.
Here is Ms. Garcia’s complaint #3: “The program doggedly emphasizes global citizenship while at the same time IB is on record as discouraging kids from identifying with one's nation.”
So, what, exactly is IB “on record” as saying? Facts are facts: according to the IB Web page that presents the IB mission, “We promote intercultural understanding and respect, not as an alternative to a sense of cultural and national identity, but as an essential part of life in the 21st century.” Ms. Garcia has presented such a distorted and non-factual interpretation of the facts, such blatant misrepresentations based purely in opinionated delusions, as to make her assertions devoid of any integrity whatsoever. With that in mind, the question becomes, “What is wrong with ‘global citizenship’?” This world is the only one we have. What, exactly, does she see as America’s role in the world? If Americans should not, in her view, be “global citizens”, what should we be?
Here is Garcia’s complaint #4: “The program encourages a collectivist mindset and continually emphasizes the idea of interconnectedness and being a part of one whole.”
Teaching our children that Humanity is one species, one race, one large family; what exactly is the problem here? Is this a horrible thing to teach our children? Is this the kind of thing rational human beings oppose? As the IB mission clearly states, “We promote intercultural understanding and respect, not as an alternative to a sense of cultural and national identity, but as an essential part of life in the 21st century.” The goal is clearly not what Ms. Garcia claims, thus one is left to wonder what Garcia’s goal is, exactly.
Garcia’s complaint #5: “Environmental activism is a common theme …”
Teaching children a healthy respect for protecting the earth’s ecosystems is something we should oppose? Ms. Garcia throws out the term “environmental activism” as if it is something to be opposed, but offers no clear definition of her own meaning, nor an explanation of why she opposes it. The recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico deems this point especially relevant just at this juncture. Here, straight from the IB Web site, is one of the primary focal points of IB:
“…in an inquiry about “Sharing the planet” for students aged 8 to 9, we might look at ‘Finite Resources – infinite demands’. In order to understand better the central idea that “Our planet has limited resources that are unevenly distributed” and using water as an example, we would inquire into where water comes from, how different people and countries use water, how much water we use, what happens after we have used it, the distribution of usable water around the world, how human activity has affected the availability of water, and our responsibility for water conservation. To support this inquiry, students would develop knowledge and acquire skills derived from science and social studies. In addition, they would develop transdisciplinary skills such as critical thinking, communication and time management.”
If the above cited “exploration” is “environmental activism”, then we need as much of it as we can possibly cultivate among our youth and all the Earth’s inhabitants, children and adults alike.
Pledge of Allegiance
Garcia’s complaint # 11: “Our kids (5th graders) learn the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish.”
“Our kids learn the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish.” And this is harmful because …? Amazingly, considering the self-proclaimed Christians that protest on this point, one is hard-pressed to understand the delusional state of mind required to validate this complaint. Is it offensive to the Christian god for children to pray to a flag, a false god, a “graven image”, in Spanish? Is the Christian god offended when people pray to HIM in Spanish? Is it offensive to American soldiers that Hispanic students pledge allegiance to the American flag in their native tongue or that other students learn the pledge in Spanish? Is the piece of cloth hanging from a pole so sacred that only the language spoken by the people against whom America’s founders fought to establish the state it represents may be spoken when praising it? This is racism, plain and simple, nothing else. Oh, and the final irony here is this; what is the derivation of “Garcia”? Oh, yeah …, it’s Spanish.
Interestingly, as I researched the IB and the arguments of those who so adamantly oppose it, I came to the realization that one of the most disturbing aspects of the IB Programme to them was the idea of kids learning the “Pledge of Allegiance” in Spanish. That’s right; the idea of this holy prayer to the god-flag being performed in Spanish is one of the primary objections I found.
It seems odd that these people praise individualism on one hand and collectivism on the other and manage to completely miss the duplicity of their stance. But one is also left to ponder whether they even understand what a “nation” is, a state, or a republic. They bandy these words about with no apparent understanding of their meanings.
The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair".
Most of them also have virtually no knowledge about the history and evolution of this little prayer to a false god that they hold so dear:
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.
In its original form it read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration.
Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Do they know the Pledge was written by a socialist? Do they know how many times it’s been changed or corrupted? Do they recognize the fact that by including the phrase “under God” the concept of “nation” is destroyed because not everyone believes in the same god or in any gods? Their consistent ignorance of these facts, their confusion concerning individualism versus collectivism, and their narrow-minded perspective all preclude the concept of nation.
It seems to me that America is not one nation, but many nations under one government, not under any god or gods.
Finally, I come to this, Garcia’s complaint #13: “In creating these ‘Global Citizens’ what are the implications later in life; will they have any sense of patriotism, will they be willing to serve in our military which requires a heartfelt devotion to our country?”
Ms. Garcia presents a strange and false dichotomy that runs consistently throughout her complaints culminating in point # 13 where she clearly reveals the confused state of mind these people possess regarding the “concepts” of individualism and collectivism. She advocates a collectivist mindset regarding indoctrinating children into her worldview that encourages devotion to a government, which undermines her advocacy of individualism. She renounces any belief in a global citizenship that creates an “interconnectedness and being a part of one whole”, as in her view, America exists as separate from the rest of humanity, separate from planet earth, in a realm of its own device, that America can act with impunity without regard for the rest of the world, as if what happens to the rest of the world has no impact on America.
Beyond that, Garcia’s # 13 query cuts to an important issue, perhaps the single most important issue in this entire debate; one which is, unfortunately, obviously lost on Garcia and her ilk. Serving in our military because of a “heartfelt devotion to our country” requires a clear understanding of what “our country” – America – is, and what it represents. Ms. Garcia seems to have no understanding of that particular requirement.
What is the answer to the question, “What does America mean, what does it represent, to what are our military representatives devoted?” In answering this particular question, “devotion to our country” is not devotion to a continent called America, and certainly not to a government that undermines the very principles the Founders enumerated as their founding principles, but in certain principles outlined in founding documents that clearly and unequivocally provide the necessary response. The ideals represented in the founding of “our country”, even if we have, to this point, failed to achieve those ideals fully, are found in The Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/).
Within that founding document is a clear reference to “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”, and this:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
“…all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The above reference to “consent of the governed” is integral to defining America, and perhaps more importantly, so is absence of any implication of devotion to a particular government. It is clear that the Founders meant government must be devoted to the “People” rather than the “People” being blindly devoted to government. America is, essentially, represented by its founding statements, which are principles set down as guidelines and are clearly devoted to individuals; nothing suggests individual citizens being devoted to America’s government. In every facet, America’s founding documents praise the value of the individual in a humanistic sense, not a sense of loyalty to the state. The abstract concept of “America” is devoted to individuals, to human beings, and quite importantly, to principles that honor and value people, all people, not just particular selected peoples or individuals, and most certainly, those principles do not place a government above people, as does Ms. Garcia. Of course, Garcia and her ilk are consistently decrying government, too, which further reveals their illogical worldview.
Garcia asks, “In creating these ‘Global Citizens’ what are the implications later in life …?”
I ask, “If we do not create these ‘Global Citizens’, what are the implications later in life, and more importantly, in human history?”
America is not a piece of ground, it is not a particular government; it is an ideal, a set of principles that promote the well-being of mankind, of humanity. It’s a fact that we have failed to achieve those ideals and principles, and our failure is found not only in the very worldview espoused by Ms. Garcia and her ilk, but also in the fact that their worldview is so prevalent.
I presented these basic arguments to my coworker, referring to logic and reason by telling him, “Show me the harm resulting from these aspects of the IB curriculum and I might understand your position,” but he could not, of course. In each case we are given complaints with no explanation of the harm that is feared. The IB opponents employ the logical fallacy of circular argument: in their view we should agree with them because they say we should, because of their narrow-minded and paranoid worldview, not because of any “facts” they present to us. In “fact”, their argument relies on misrepresentation of “facts” rather than logical assimilation of facts.
The authors of America’s founding documents were men who valued logic, reason, intelligence and education; they recognized the significance of an enlightened worldview that was starting to take hold in Europe and they incorporated that enlightenment into American founding documents, presumably with the hope that such enlightenment would flourish. Ms. Garcia and her ilk represent a mindset that is harshly and decisively antithetical to that enlightenment. Their perception of the concept of America is a delusional America that sees itself as separate from all other peoples, with a form of government that is “destructive of these ends” to “secure these rights” that are deemed “unalienable” among “all men”. It is ironic that these people represent the very antithesis of the “one nation” referenced in the flag prayer they so worship that they consider it some form of sacrilege for it to be spoken in Spanish.
Understanding what a nation actually is reveals that America is not one nation, it is many nations that must learn to live together, which is a microcosm of the global dilemma of many nations that must learn to live together – to become global citizens – a dilemma the IB hopes to help alleviate; a worthy goal that Ms. Garcia and these fools oppose.
I wonder what Ms. Garcia thinks of the Statue of Liberty…
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles.
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips.
"Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
Roughly 150 years ago, Robert E Lee, a man of unquestioned character, chose, albeit reluctantly, his allegiance to Virginia over his allegiance to the United States. In those day, it was common for ones allegiance to be to their state before their country.
Indeed, one may honestly wonder if that order doesn't still exist in the South, what with Rick Perry, the ignorant governor of Texas (Texas apparently delights in electing such men governor) openly, and apparently seriously, suggested secession. Others in Texas and elsewhere have done the same. So what does country mean to these people?
I cite these examples to make the point that a person's primary affiliation isn't always to country, and in fact, for much of history, the idea of country was absurd. For instance, until around 1000 AD, there was no Scotland, only a number of tribes fiercely loyal to laird and clan. Yet today there are few citizens in the world more fiercely loyal than Scots.
That same sort of affiliation exists in present day Afghanistan, where allegiance to clan and tribe is far more important than the nation -- such as it is -- of Afghanistan. And if forced to choose a country, it's fair to say many of the northern tribes view Pakistan more favorably than Afghanistan.
Right now a fierce struggle continues for control of Iraq, a nation that did not exist until the 20th Century. That begs the question how loyal can those who live within that geographic boundary be to Iraq? In fact, one reason the conflict is so fierce is Iraq isn't really and ethic nation at all, but an entity created primarily for the benefit of western powers.
Then again, if ethnicity is a measure of country, what nation could be more ethnically disparate than our own? That has been the strength of this country, but alas, it appears more and more that the intense heat generated by divide and conquer politics has melted the melting pot.
Jesus was Jew, not a Christian. It is generally accepted that he wasn't blond-haired and blue-eyed, and he didn't speak in English, but in Aramaic. His words were translated into Hebrew, Greek and Latin -- at least -- but they were not available in English until MANY centuries later. In fact, people were burned at the stake for the "heresy" of translating the Bible into English.
The johnny-come-lately version of the Bible Kindergarten Kristians are so inordinately fond of wasn't written until the early 1600's, and it was financed by King James and written to his specifications, which included a particular emphasis on reasserting the Divine Right of Kings -- something I assume Christians no longer support, tho in the case of Kindergarten Kristians one can't be sure.
Again, Jesus was a Jew who saved most of his criticism, and certainly his harshest criticism, for his faith. One assumes he thot it best to remove the log from the eye of his faith before removing the splinter from the eye of some other faith. Certainly there was much to criticize about his own faith, just as is the case with today's self-serving, holier-than-thou, prosperity gospel, evangelical perversion of Christianity.
For someone widely regarded as a revolutionary, there is a conspicuous absence of criticism of either Jewish rulers or Roman rulers in Jesus words. It appears, "render unto Caesar" was not just a bit of sophistry with him.
Of course, all this falls on the all too willingly deaf ears of Kindergarten Kristians, who tragically and dangerously see themselves as the New Chosen People.
Regarding "American Exceptionalism", I can only say the individual who wrote the "letter to the editor" and her ilk exemplify one form of "American Exceptionalism" in total ignorance and arrogance.
What people in the US call "American exceptionalism" the rest of the world calls "nationalism" (as opposed to patriotism). And that ideology has a very bad historical record.
I think America, the concept - the illusion, is a good thing, but the reality is not so much. I think I was especially affected by talking to someone fact-to-face (my coworker) who actually agreed with what Ms. Garcia had written. My thought is that he was not really all that familiar with the IB and assumed Garcia was being factual, but I don't know for sure what he knew and did not know.
I would be irritated to hear this. Liberals are no different from anyone else in this regard: We all have our preconceptions and biases to overcome. I'd ask your co-worker why so many conservatives are in denial about the basic facts concerning evolution, for example, or whether cutting taxes will raise revenues, or whether President Obama was born in the U.S.
I think you’re right, although my impression is that she’s not afraid to think for herself; she just lacks any real ability to “connect the dots” in a logical formulation of more complex “concepts” which may be one source of her insecurity and her expressed fear of concepts.
And this is something that seems to personify many, if not most, conservatives; I think it is one of the reasons conservatives require a rigidly structured environment because such an environment simplifies life’s more complex “concepts” like those to which Ms. Garcia objects in the IB program curriculum.
So it’s not exactly a fear of thinking for herself, but rather a fear of concepts beyond her ability to understand, fear to the extreme of neurotic, of the unknown.
Some people, on the other hand, find the unknown intriguing and seductive, and these individuals are “Liberals” and “Progressives” and are responsible for all human progress.
You write, We all have our preconceptions and biases to overcome.”
This is SO true! However, some of us are more aware of this and more willing to admit it than others. And because we are more cognizant of this, we are more likely to recognize when we are wrong about something, more likely to admit we’re wrong, and more likely to learn from that experience. But more importantly, I think, is that we actually value such a learning experience because we do not fear admitting our error or our fallibility.
Conservatives often seem to be possessed of some sort of “machismo” that requires not admitting errors. George W. Bush may be the “Poster Child” for this particular type of conservative machismo. Bush is currently promoting his Orwellian “double-speak” in which words and “concepts” lose their meanings by virtue (or lack thereof) of lingual misrepresentation like labeling legislation that reduces regulations on pollution as “The Clear Skies Act”.
You point out that “…so many conservatives are in denial about the basic facts concerning evolution, for example, or whether cutting taxes will raise revenues, or whether President Obama was born in the U.S.”
I think this refers back to the fear of “life’s more complex concepts” mentioned in my response to old new lefty. Sometimes I think life has just become so complicated that some people sort of give up and surrender to a backward, overly simplistic perspective because they simply do not have the stamina, emotionally or mentally, to resist continue to face facts. Honestly, there are times when I feel that way, but I always come to recognize that I’m just worn down and need some rest, and once I get that rest, I’m ready to confront more coworkers, or whomever might present a logical challenge.
Thanks again for coming back.
I’m always glad when you contribute to one of my posts.
First, I have to address your statement, “…little more than 150 years ago, the dominant language in the American Southwest was Spanish.”
I grew up in El Paso, Texas during the ‘60s and ‘70s, and I know, first-hand, that there were areas of El Paso even then that were predominantly Spanish-speaking, not only residential areas, but even business sectors of downtown El Paso. I recall when I was a boy, of about 12 years of age, going downtown and entering businesses where they had advertisements on their store windows written only in Spanish and encountering only employees whose first language was Spanish and whose second language was English, if they were able to speak English at all.
I recall a life-changing event that occurred when I was about 12. I had entered a record shop in downtown El Paso and asked for a 45 rpm of a song by Creedence Clearwater Revival. The girl appeared to not understand me and went to the back of the store to ask for help. While she may not have been to understand me, in that moment I thought, “I’ve seen this before and I want to try something different.”
By the time the other individual came up to me, I had decided to try an experiment; I asked for the record I wanted in Spanish. The response was truly a revelation for me at that young age. Not only did the individual to whom I was speaking suddenly present a totally different response to me (a look of surprise and then a smile), but the girl I had originally spoken to went behind the curtain leading to the back of the store and within a short moment another man had stuck his head out to take a look at me. It seemed I had suddenly become an oddity in their daily routines.
What had happened was that I had made a genuine effort to address them in their own language, of which I had no real mastery but was able to make myself understood, a simple gesture that showed a rare and unexpected level of mutual human respect, and this gesture instantly created a totally different level of interaction among all present. From that moment forward, these people accepted me and attempted to help me instead of being mildly resistant to my requests for what I wanted. As an interesting side note, the record I wanted was Down on the Corner/Fortunate Son, a double-sided hit record in that era and both sides of the record were printed in Spanish: “En la Esquina/Hijo Afortunato”.
It’s an interesting coincidence that you raise the specter of the racially segregated South and allegiance to State over allegiance to country because just a little while ago I was watching a documentary on HBO about black football players gradually being accepted in colleges during the 1960s. That documentary presented the political rise of George Wallace during that era and in an interview moment George Wallace’s son stated that George Wallace had run on important issues like the economy, unemployment, etc and lost, but later when he ran on promoting “segregation” his constituency “stomped their feet” in adulation and Wallace won.
This clearly exemplifies the idea that America is not one nation, but many nations that must learn to live together, as Wallace forsook the State in favor of his “nation”, his clan, the people with whom he shared culture, ethnicity and language. Regarding learning to live together, so far, I think we are not only failing to do so, but we are actually regressing in regards to achieving that goal. I can only guess, but I think we are moving closer and closer to similar societal divides that forced Robert E. Lee into his fateful choice.
Finally, your point about the corruption of the original religious texts upon which Christianity is based is an apt parallel of the corruption of the Pledge of allegiance, and in both instances, these people seem completely unaware.
Thanks for contributing here.
You ask, “What's the opposite of environmental activism, by the way? Environmental passivism?”
Exactly my point; what the hell does Garcia think we SHOULD do regarding protection and use of our environment and resources? She does not present her alternative; she only complains about the “exploration” advocated by the IB curriculum. Actually, she does not even present a reason for complaining about the IB “exploration”. She merely labels it, suggests that there is something wrong with it, but never explains her opposition. Her presentation and the fact that so many are willing adherents to her presentation without any explanation, is truly astounding, really.
I cracked up when I read that YOU had learned the Pledge in Spanish and your suggestion that “I don't think it really hurt me any”, prompted me to wonder, “Are you sure?” I mean, these people seem adamant that learning the prayer to the flag-god will cause some form of irreparable damage on the young “unindoctrinated” psyches of our youth.
You write, “I remember when knowing about the world was considered critical to being a participant in the world at large. How could ignorance be better preparation?”
There are answers to your query, of course, for instance, “There is a distinction between participant and master,” but I think your query is rhetorical.
As to your “hollow support” analogy, it’s a good one. There may be a difference though. You, as a child, instinctively if not consciously recognized the futility and likelihood of failure in your endeavor; I think Ms. Garcia does not.
Thanks for commenting.
I’m not sure that, in terms of a “bad historical record”, nationalism and patriotism are not particularly distinct from one another; each implies an unrealistic placement of one above all others and both lead to the same sort of destructive ends. I think the key is to never stop questioning one’s own biases, but it seems that an ‘-ism’ generally precludes that questioning.
I have always been resistant to the phrase “American exceptionalism”. Any entity that proclaims itself as “exceptional” gives rise to my self-defense instinct.
That is a potent source of identity, although it can be unstable too, when people disagree about the meaning of applying those ideals in changed circumstances.
Some of what you see it seems like is a pushback that is inevitable when things get more cosmopolitan, like,"I remember a simpler time," which is an illusion usually, if a potent one.
The ideals part, you get just right I think, which makes us a peculiar nation-state. :)
This is a fascinating subject. I actually envy the US in the sense that an American identity is something people have been able to choose, simply by moving to the US and buying into the basic values expressed in your founding documents. I think countries like my own are handicapped when we suddenly experience an influx of immigrants, because our idea of national identity is so linked to ethnicity, language, culture and religion. If our new countrymen are ever to fit in, I imagine we will have to develop something akin to your national ideas, a common ground we all share regardless of ancestry. The US, for all its flaws, is the obvious model.
I neglected to say that this is a wonderful post. But I hope you got that implied message... :-)
I thank you for contributing here. I think you’re right when you say, “…it can be unstable too, when people disagree about the meaning of applying those ideals in changed circumstances.”
But I think that statement applies to so many things. What I think is that the arises when ignorance and greed combine so that people distort and corrupt the prinicples instead of applying them honestly. The underlying founding principles in the American Founding Documents are pretty clear and straightforward, I think. Looking at the inerpretations applied by Ms. Garcia and her ilk displays more than simple disagreement; it displays dishonesty, greed and self-interest run amok. And the mental requirements for agreeing with her interpretations are minimal at best --- in other words, an inability of intelligent thought. Beyond that, I think dishonesty would also qualify.
Regarding patriotism and nationalism, I definitely see the differences to which you refer.
When I say, “I’m not sure that, in terms of a “bad historical record”, nationalism and patriotism are particularly distinct from one another …”, I’m referring to the “historical” results of each more than to the meaning of each. I think “love of country” has wrought tremendous suffering throughout human history. I think the cause of that is probably due to affiliation with a particular ‘country’ essentially assumes a sense of ‘nationalism’ as people replace an ethnic identity with a state identity. This is, I think, what happens with Ms. Garcia and her ilk.
And I think many politicians use this as a tool to distract from domestic issues in order to garner votes based on this sense of state unity, which is often called “national identity”. This distinction was what caught my attention via Ms. Garcia’s misrepresentations and denial of global citizenship, as if global citizenship is something to be opposed. One can only associate her position with what she considers “love of country” since ethnicity is not her focus. She has, in effect, replaced “nation” with “state”, thereby confusing the entire issue and this is quite common, I think.
Also, I don’t think “love of country” is any more “a natural instinct” than a sense of unity with a common cultural group. I think the two can become confused, as I indicated above, thereby lessening a preference for one over the other. Actually, in my view, “nationalism” seems more natural and instinctive to me because it precedes “love of country” since it is directly related to genetics and upbringing, which are not matters of choice, whereas, as you point out, affiliation with country can be a matter of choice.
You write, “It's like the difference between ‘I love my wife’ and ‘My wife is the best woman in the world, far better than yours’.
That’s a good clarification of the distinction you reference, but either statement may occur in either case of patriotism or nationalism. For instance, a Hispanic individual can say, “I love my heritage,” and an American can say, “My country is the best in the world, far better than yours.” This is what I refer to in my statement that the distinction of meaning breaks down in terms of “bad historical record”. In effect, either can become the same problem. Consider your own statement:
“I think countries like my own are handicapped when we suddenly experience an influx of immigrants, because our idea of national identity is so linked to ethnicity, language, culture and religion.”
This is so on point; Ms. Garcia and those like her advocate exactly what you describe, which is, as you point out, exactly antithetical to America’s founding documents and principles.
BTW, thanks for the compliment and thanks again for contributing to the discussion; I also thought this was an interesting issue; the idea that such obvious duplicity can be so easily missed and accepted as clear thinking. And for me, personally, the face-to-face encounter with my coworker especially brought home the prevalence of such duplicity of thought.
This sums it up for me:
"The IB opponents employ the logical fallacy of circular argument: in their view we should agree with them because they say we should, because of their narrow-minded and paranoid worldview, not because of any “facts” they present to us."
Absolutely no critical thinking skills or understanding of logic.
Once an older woman from my church gave me a screed about the UN Heritage Sites as a UN plot trying to takeover Yellowstone Park etc. I was unable to contain my shock; I love the UN. She wound up being embarrassed as I did too. With logic such as this, you cannot even have a conversation with them--it goes in circles as you say.
Blind minds are patriotic minds, I guess. Ironic that she would mention the loss of "cannon fodder" if kids knew the whole world as one.
Not only is Garcia's screed the product of the indoctrinated ideologue, the statement about liberals not knowing facts is a slogan of the same mind(less)set. Fools like Garcia hear "collective" and go from plain meaning to communist hordes paratrooping on Main Street in 2.6 seconds.
It's that same simplistic, childish one-meaning literalism that can make Hitler into a socialist, and Saddam's Republican Guard into the GOP overseas vote.
A socialist wrote the Pledge. I heard that some time ago, and it's still humorous, considering.
Here's an example of a liberal knowing the facts --
What you quote from the Declaration was written by a Liberal.
Jefferson begins with the statement of Natural Rights--life, liberty, pursuit of happiness -- followed by the complaint that the government had broken with those rights, followed by the claim it was justified in being overthrown.
That is a very essential statement of Liberal Philosophy, and you should always remind the cluckheads of this fact. To the one-(wrong)-meaning literalistic, it's sure to draw a quizzical look. Have fun with it, knowing they cannot prove you wrong, except in their own tiny minds.
Garcia, et al, are more like cult members than patriots. They may not be idiots across the full spectrum of idiocy, but they are politically stupid people. However, reading what the IB program is and arriving at Garcia's conclusions certainly flirts with the idea her stupidity spans most, if not all, of the colors of aggressively expressed ignorance.
We, the people.....a strong collectivist statement.
Oh, the horror! America was founded by socialist propagandists intent on destroying America!
Yours is a thoughtful essay. I see the word “xenophobia” two times among the comments; and that one word appears entirely adequate to describe Ms. Garcia’s state of mind. Note the lower case ‘s’.
Your essay also illustrates the intellectual curiosity we should all posses, the analysis of issues we should all employ, and the objectivity we should all retain in pursuit of our opinions and our happiness. Thanks for putting all of these on display.
One of my avocations is education. I have served a term on a School Governing Board. I have served on school district financial committees. I have even taught in elementary classrooms for several semesters. With this experience came a passing familiarity with the IB.
The responses you draft to Ms. Garcia’s distortions illuminate two educational aspects lacking in many classrooms today, but emphasized by the IB. There is the “concept vs fact” methodology deficiency. There is the “local vs global” perspective deficiency.
First, many factors, including the high-stake State standardized tests (especially those mandated by No Child Left Behind), motivate teachers to reduce their curricula to a mere recitation of facts and of step-by-step processes, which they expect their students to memorize. However, a poorer quality of teacher is also to blame in the “fact vs concept” educational shortcoming, in my view.
Stagnate salaries, poor entry-level compensation, and often-deplorable working conditions all contribute to the reduction in quality of teachers in the labor pool who cannot elevate their instruction to the level at which students are first made to understand strands and concepts and then are required to deduce the processes, prove the processes, or gain the facts, by themselves. Requiring students to think, trains them to think. Requiring students to memorize, trains them to memorize.
Second, four and five decades ago, after WWII, teachers, and parents, were more cosmopolitan than they are today. The war brought many Americans in close contact with the culture and customs of both Europe and Asia. Television was far less prominent in our lives then and teachers were far more likely to learn of foreign cultures, events, affairs, and perspectives through books, magazines, newspapers, and film than from the omnipresent electronic media in America today.
By having a more heterogeneous mental composition, teachers, often implicitly, passed on a broader perspective to their students than happens today in many classrooms. Most young teachers today have never traveled, or even peripherally experienced anything, outside of America.
The solutions to the first problems are likely well known and tractable. I have no solutions to offer for the second.
Chris
It was sort of starnge to be confronted with this at work. The worst part, though, was that I actually like the guy who presented it. But many of the people I work with are particularly conservative to point of being Bush supporters and I have been in various confrontational discussions with many of them, including while Bush was president.
Regarding your church friend, you write, “I was unable to contain my shock.”
I don’t think I actually experienced any shock when my coworker approached me with this; perhaps I’m too cycnical, or maybe I wasn’t terribly surprised because I already expect conservatism from most of the people I work with. What I experienced initially was amusement, which slowly transformed into a sort of sadness about the people around me and what their lack of mental capacity implies for all of us.
The fact the we have people who think like this in high positions of power must be seen as a threat to our security, as well as the rest of the world.
The letter to the editor about which you comment is insignificant in itself, but nonetheless provides an example of much that is wrong with conservatism as it currently exists in the U.S. I could say more, but you've already said much of what I would say, and I am largely in agreement with you.
What I found particularly odd about this "letter to the editor" is the view that it has of education and children. It's as if the writer sees children as concrete and education as a mold into which they are poured, after which their ideas are fixed and unalterable. Even if the writers views were correct -- which they aren't -- children can change and come to their own conclusions. But for her, education not about teaching children to think for themselves, but about indoctrination and thought control.
I was surprised, although I really shouldn’t have been, at the manner in which Garcia utilized so many “clichés” of the right-wing, as they seemed to make even less sense than they normally do. Her self-contradictory application of them is so obvious that I couldn’t believe she was unable to recognize her own duplicity.
Reading her letter of complaint, I was reminded of John Stewart Mill who wrote: “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives.”
Your last line, which to some extent captures the mood of my somewhat amused cynical initial reaction to this workplace event, sums up the obvious duplicitous nature of Garcia and her ilk: “America was founded by socialist propagandists intent on destroying America!”
;-)
Thanks for your contribution here.
You refer to “…two educational aspects lacking in many classrooms today, […] the ‘concept vs fact’ methodology deficiency [and] the ‘local vs global’ perspective deficiency.”
I found the “concept vs fact” issue quite intriguing when I ran across it in Garcia’s letter. It seemed fairly clear to me that facts are a valuable tool in determining anything resembling truth or reliable conclusions. But reliable, accurate conclusions generally rely on logical assimilation of facts into conceptual form. But as Paul states in his comment regarding Garcia and her ilk, “their young minds cant’ handle nuance.” Simplicity is not something I oppose, but sometimes pursuing it will lead away from necessary solutions.
I liked your summary: “Requiring students to think, trains them to think. Requiring students to memorize, trains them to memorize.”
Thus, we see Garcia’s preference for indoctrination over education.
Regarding your reference to travel and exposure for teachers to other cultures, I don’t think that is much of a problem. But I know a big part of the problem is, as you point out, the State standardized tests. Just a couple days ago I heard something on the radio about an investigation that has found that many teachers and administrators cheat on grading in order to secure funding. This strikes me as a sort of catch-22 since they do it because they recognize the importance of education for their students, but by cheating in grading they rob their students of that needed education. Yet, if they don’t get the required funding, they can’t provide an education. And round and round it goes
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Your statement, “The letter to the editor about which you comment is insignificant in itself, but nonetheless provides an example of much that is wrong with conservatism …”
This was precisely my intent; to show the illogical thought processes that are required to believe what these folks believe.
You write, “But for her, education [is] not about teaching children to think for themselves, but about indoctrination and thought control.”
Yes, and yet, she decries the concept of a person thinking for himself as being indoctrinated into a collectivist mindset. Her confusion of individualism and collectivism is so obvious that I was dumbstruck at how anyone could read her complaints and not see that.