As many of us witnessed, the Lick-Wilmerding community introduced a new type of holiday to the campus on Monday, September 17th, which also happened to be the birthday of our nation’s Constitution. Sponsored by the History department and with the help of many Lick participants, the school-wide “Constitution Day” was an enthusiastic and fun (and slightly geeky) way of spending an ordinary Monday lunch period.
Yesterday in class, we had the opportunity to discuss the event and other sort of questions and ideas that students had about it. This short prompt turned into a long discussion about patriotism, and where definitions and connotations of this word came from. There was some discussion amongst our class whether this event was an act of patriotism and in turn, a way of celebrating what the government is doing right now (aka the Bush Administration and Iraq). People noted that often times, in largely left-winged communities, as we have also identified Lick as, the word “patriotism” tends to have a more negative connotation. Others commented that the twist in language in combination with the dynamic of the current government party largely influences what the public’s view of what it means to be “patriotic.”
We also discussed the question of “Who let the American flag become politically patriotic?” Some of the comments tended to link the flag to those who supported the war and those who didn’t, as well as its presence outside of people’s houses, in schools, and on the streets after 911 occurred. Lastly, when talking about the day in assembly last year when some students began singing the national anthem, there was some conflicting ideas about what it means when someone, especially at Lick, decides to stand up and sing or those who refuse to stand and don’t sing. One student noted that “the ability to sit down, that’s patriotic.”
So, after that lengthy summary, I also had a few thoughts and questions of my own:
1. Ms. Finn told us that the Constitution has the title as the only document of its kind in history that hasn’t been overthrown by its government, who has experienced a major revolution in its past. Do you think that this title has contributed to the fact that some of the biggest problems in this country have not been solved consistently throughout history, due to the stubbornness, pride, or even laziness (as Ms. Finn joked)?
2. What does it mean when groups of Lick students refer to America or the American government constantly as “they” in writing and in everyday language? Is there a reluctance towards associating oneself with a large group (can be anything—joining in putting up an American flag, singing the national anthem, practicing a religion…etc.) due to fear of conforming or losing one’s sense of independent voice and individuality?
3. Has this disagreement or undefined understanding of “patriotism” contributed to the increased polarity of our country, especially in times of war and political crisis? If it is factor, can it be altered or fixed?
4 comments:
I was really drawn to the 2nd question of Ting's, regarding why students refer to the American government as "they". I took "American government" to mean America's actions (correct me if this is wrong) as in "they decided to go to war." I think this is an interesting question, first off because most of us are too young to vote, therfore really had no say in appointing any of the people running the country and making political decisions. This could be one reason people refer to the government and it's actions as they, because we as students really are not part of the decision making, and are connected mainly by association.
The second part of the question that was about conformity and losing ones individual voice and individuality made me think of how I could relate this topic to myself. A connection I made was that I am Jewish, but if I were speaking of a hate crime, I wouldn't say "they were targeting us," but rather "they were targeting the Jews." The reason behind this definitely does not have to do with my fear of losing my individuality to a larger group. It also doesn't have to do with feeling Jewish or not, or practicing traditions. I think it's because unless an action has to do personally with me, I wouldn't categorize it as "we". I think this could be another reason that many people may refer to the government as "they", not necessarily because they are completely against everything they are doing (although that certainly could be a reason), or would lose their sense of self, but maybe because they don't feel that they are directly connected.
The idea of patriotism is actually really interesting right now because of the basic extreme divisions between our nation of liberal/left and conservative/right. I think personally I feel the same way Rachel does about "they" for the US government, just because not only can I not vote, but I don't believe in the actions of the government, and so even though they are supposed to represent me as an American, I don't agree with all their decisions or views and so I don't identify as being together with Bush or Michael Chertoff (the Homeland Security guy) in a "we" type of situation.
I also think that patriotism is such an intangible thing to describe or manifest just because you can still be a patriot and not believe that your country is making the best decisions at the moment, or that a particular leader is doing an extraordinary job. I guess I think of a patriot as just being proud of one's nation and accomplishments, but also knowing there is room for improvement and not having a national supremacy theory in mind.
I think the word patriot is ridiculously loaded and in the past few years has been used to present extremes such as "if you were a real patriot you would support this war" or "real patriots respect Bush." This also comes up in "supporting our troops" because some people say that if you were patriotic you would "support our troops" by accepting the fact that they should be in Iraq, for example, but I think that you can just as support the troops themselves without agreeing with the actions of the leaders sending them to war anyways. I could be alone in these beliefs though because patriotism really isn't presented or viewed in this way very much in the general public.
i think melissa brings up some interesting points...
i don't think patriotism means that you AGREE with what the government is doing, but i think that patriotism DOES mean wanting to see your country grow and prosper. i strongly disagree with those people who "want us to lose" in iraq, and i also strongly disagree with those who blatantly say "i hate america." those people are clearly not patriotic and clearly anti-american. to them, i would like to say: "you don't like it here? go live somewhere else." to me, america is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) countries in the world.
in regards to bush...
i don't think you have to agree with him; i don't even think you have to like him. but i do think that, because he's our president, you should RESPECT him. like in a debate, you have to respect the other point of view and try to see the other side. i disagree with those who think that he's "just stupid" because frankly... i don't think he is. :) to me, that is disrespectful and unnecessary. if you don't agree with his views, say WHY; don't attack him personally.
basically what i'm saying is that a patriot (to me) truly enjoys living in this country and wants to see it succeed. a patriot is respectful of the nation's leaders, regardless if he or she agrees with them or not. :)
anyway, hope this brought a new point of view to the table... :)
-coe
well put, coe
Post a Comment