Posted on 02/08/2015 6:04:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Governments never fail to call on their flocks to "love their country," and make any sacrifice on its behalf, "sacrifice" being defined by politicians.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!" Was there a man dismay'd? Not tho' the soldier knew Someone had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die: Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred
~"The Charge of the Light Brigade," Alfred, Lord Tennyson
The reason for the venom directed at those of us who question American sniper Chris Kyle's status as a hero can be put into one word: nationalism.
Nationalism is a poison. It attacks the mind, short-circuits thinking, and makes self-destruction look appealing. Nationalism sows the seeds of hate and war. It makes the title warrior an honorific instead of the pejorative it ought to be.
We see naked ugly nationalism in many defenses of Kyle. Defenders appear to have but one operating principle: If Kyle was an American military man and the people he killed were not American, then he was a hero. Full stop. No other facts are relevant. It matters not that Kyle was a cog in an imperial military machine that waged a war of aggression on behalf of the ruling elite's geopolitical and economic interests, that he did his killing on foreign soil, and that no Iraqi had come to the United States seeking to harm him or other Americans. (Contrary to what Kyle defenders seem to believe, not one Iraqi was among the 19 hijackers on 9/11, although had that been otherwise, the murder of millions of other Iraqis and the displacement of millions more would not have been justified.) All that apparently matters to many Kyle fans is that this man was born in America, joined the American military, and faithfully obeyed orders to kill people he called savages.
That is what nationalism does to a human being.
The ugliness of nationalism is often perceptible even by those who harbor it and commit terrible acts as a result. So they rationalize. They don't openly cheer the killing of Iraqis because they are Iraqis (or Arabs or Muslims); rather they plead self-defense: if we don't kill them, they will kill us. Kyle and his comrades were defending America and Americans' freedom, his defenders say.
But if you've seen American Sniper, the movie based on Kyle's book, you heard Kyle's wife, Taya, reject that claim. I'm surprised that this bit of dialogue has been ignored (to my knowledge) in the voluminous writing about the movie. As Kyle gets ready for yet another tour in Iraq, his unhappy wife asks why he is going back. "For you," he says, and by extension, America.
"No you're not," she fires back.
He also invokes the welfare of the Iraqis, telling his wife that being away from home for another long stretch would not be a problem because their family could spare the time and the Iraqis could not. She didn't buy that line either. She is deeply disturbed that her husband would rather try to fix Iraq (as though he and his comrades could do that through military force) than look after his family.
It's curious that Taya Kyle (if this scene actually took place) had a clearer picture of the world than Kyle's vitriolic nationalist defenders, who praise the sniper for following orders without question. (One even approvingly alluded to Tennyson's poem.)
If not for nationalism, such contortions — the conjuring of imaginary threats, the conceit in aspiring to save a society one knows absolutely nothing about, the twisting of the warrior's ways into virtues — would be unnecessary. Things could be called what they are. Someone who swears an oath that in practical terms obliges him to kill whomever the current White House occupant tells him to kill, "asking nothing about the justice of [the] cause," would be called a cold-blooded contract killer rather than a hero.
Nationalism, to judge by how nationalists conduct themselves, is an unswerving religious-like devotion to the nation, construed as a quasi-mystical entity — "America" — that cannot be wrong and so has the authority to command reverence and obedience. The nation transcends particular political officeholders, but the government, or state, is integral to the entity. The nation (country) cannot be imagined without the state. It would not be the same thing. When an American nationalist thinks of his country, he thinks not merely of a land mass with distinctive features, the people (a diverse group indeed), and its history (a mixed bag) because that list does not fully capture what they mean by America.
Government represents and expresses the will and sentiment of the nation. (To be sure, a nationalist can think that the people have erred in picking their "leaders," in which case the nation is misrepresented and has to be "taken back.") The power of compartmentalization allows some people who think of themselves as individualists while seeing the nation in these corporate terms.
Let's remember that this quasi-mystical entity is what it is only because of countless contingent events effected by flawed human beings. The United States did not begin with 50 states, of course. Had events gone differently, it might have included some or all of Canada and none of what was once part of Mexico. It might have been without the Florida territory and the 828,000 square miles that constituted the Louisiana Purchase. The current boundaries were the result of (often bloody) human action but not entirely of human design. So it was with other nations. At one time, there were no nations as we think of them today.
"Forgetting, I would even go so far as to say historical error, is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation," Ernest Renan said in his famous 1882 lecture, "What Is a Nation?," "which is why progress in historical studies often constitutes a danger for [the principle of] nationality. Indeed, historical enquiry brings to light deeds of violence which took place at the origin of all political formations…. Unity is always effected by means of brutality." (Ludwig von Mises praised Renan and his lecture in Omnipotent Government.)
This integral relationship between nation and state is why nationalists reject claims that one can love one's country while despising the government. That's impossible by their definition of country. To oppose the government is to oppose the country. You may oppose a particular president, but don't dare oppose the military. Now, you can try to redefine country to make it something properly lovable, but you won't persuade a nationalist.
It's no accident that governments never fail to call on their flocks to "love their country," by which they mean: be willing to make any sacrifice on its behalf, with "sacrifice" defined by politicians. Instilling nationalism is always the primary mission of government and its schools because, as Ernst Gellner wrote in Nations and Nationalism, "It is nationalism which engenders nations, and not the other way round."
That mission is behind the near-compulsory recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance (written by an avowed collectivist), salutes to "the troops" for "their service" on any and every occasion, and the playing of the national anthem and other nationalist songs at sporting events. It's what's behind the repeated, compulsive assurances that "America is the greatest country on earth." The ruling elite understands that love of country will inevitably find its application in fealty to the government, no matter what dissenters may say.
Some of us wish to distinguish nationalism from patriotism, but I don't think this works. Patriothas a lineage that includes the Greek words for "fatherland," patris; "of one's fathers," patrios; and "father," pater. This indicates the country's parental relationship to the citizen. It can't simply mean "land of one's fathers" because people believe they should feel patriotic about lands their fathers never set foot in. We're back to that quasi-mystical entity, America. Hence my definition of patriot: one who, no matter the difficulties, places power above party.
I understand the love of the place one knew as a child. I understand the love of home, of family, of community, of neighbors, and of people with whom one has shared experiences and beliefs. I understand the love of virtuous principles as expressed in historical documents (such as the Declaration of Independence). That kind of love does not ignite hate for the Other or create admiration for the warrior who enjoys killing the Other on order. That takes the poison of nationalism and an obsession with the nation it creates.
The American Sniper Was No Hero
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3253135/posts
Rubbish. Not worth reading.
An eloquent elaboration of why libertarianism is traitorous selfish and in league with anti Americanism.
WE..the American NATION have always been a Nation of Laws.....thats why we LOVE IT!
some people miss this stuff and rush off the the first illogical conclusion they can find..
taking a concept and misrepresenting it entirely...is the sign of a weak mind
These people would have us unilaterally eliminate love of our country. Surely a recipe for national destruction.
Self hatred is a bitter poison, right?
Wow, what a load of crap.
I am, and have always been, a staunch nationalist. IMO most of those who decry nationalism are UN communists. They hate nationalism because it is an obstacle to their One (communist) World ideal.
To claim that my love of country is at the same time a hate of other countries is an illogical lie.
The European Union is a good example of the despotism exerted by just the sort as this author. This socialist despotism is superior to defending one’s country from....European socialist despots?
I no longer argue logic with these LibTard pinheads. I now tell them to kiss off, you want my freedom, come see if you can take it.
The author is correct, in one respect – “Nationalism” (as he considers it) seems to evoke a deep hatred and venom in this person against his own countrymen & particularly those who would selflessly defend his right to utter such garbage.
This is the flagship libertarian publication.
“Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation.”
Only traitorous if you consider blind patriotism a virtue.
Far as I’m concerned the guy drilling holes into kids is more than enough reason not only to shoot the scum from rooftops, but to take military action in their country in the first place.
“WE..the American NATION have always been a Nation of Laws.....thats why we LOVE IT!”
Reality today demonstrates that we are no longer a nation of laws as you describe. We are a nation of fiat manipulations, by unelected government agencies and judges. They all do whatever they wish.
Laws now are purely for the purpose of controlling anyone who gets in their way.
Last year, +79,000 pages of laws, rules and regulations were added to the Federal Register. Do you know any of them? Me neither.
That is the point. They are there to be used as a weapon against anyone who dares stand in their way.
They are above the law. They choose what to enforce as it pleases them.
One of the reasons I have no use for libertarianism.
“This is the flagship libertarian publication.”
Yes it is and they are usually not this crazy.
People need to realize that all the people killed by Chris Kyle, et al. are just a drop in the bucket of the number that will have to be killed in order to end global jihad.
But folks are really not getting that yet. I have no idea what will finally get the idea through their thick heads. I dread to think of what it will take.
They are crazy enough, and this does fit in with libertarianism.
All these people see today is a territory of resources to exploit, and an indigenous peope who are in their way. In order to overthrow them, they must first disconnect them from their history by making nationalism a sin.
-PJ
After 60 years of liberalism and libertarianism, that old fashioned American patriotism that worries you so much, is just about gone.
Dear Mr. Richman, ( and I use the term “Mr.” loosely because I am not sure that you deserve it, ) if not nationalism then what? Internationalism? No nationalism at all? What?
Idiot!
Not only is this the libertarian flagship publication, but look at the author.
“Sheldon Richman is vice president of the Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of Future of Freedom, FFF’s monthly publication.”
“The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) is a nonprofit libertarian foundation based in Fairfax, Virginia. It was founded by libertarian author and former defense attorney Jacob G. Hornberger in 1989 in order to advance the libertarian philosophy by “providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and a limited government.” Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor. James Bovard is a policy advisor.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.