tomndebb:Mowat could probably drive up to any bridge in New York or Michigan and drive across with no problem. However, he was engaged for a speaking tour and needed the appropriate work papers in order to come into the U.S. and earn money.
Oh. I see. Thank you.
december:No doubt Mowat is a lefty, but [sic] he’s an important writer.
I don’t think I want to know december’s opinion on whether Canadian “lefties” who happen not to be important writers should be refused visas to speak in the U.S.
I tried to find details of this episode on google by entering Farley Mowat visa, but all the hits I got seemed to be about using a Visa card to order his books.
Well then, whip out your Visa card and order Mowat’s My Discovery of America (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1985), which apparently tells the whole story of this incident. Or google on “Farley Mowat denied entry US”.
I think it ultimately depends on how you perceive the word “patriotism”. One kind of patriotism is based on a high tolerance for your government’s actions, which makes one support his/her country with more faith than objectivity. On the other side, it can be interpreted as being critical of the country’s path, thus choosing to err on the side of being critical than supportive. I think there are many who believe that the latter attitude helps the country in the long run better than the former and that’s what this OP is probably about. Given the inescapable nature of power abuse by politicians and government, I would personally choose to be in the latter group. Consequently, my fundamental attitude would be based more on caution and wariness than faith… and I still think I am “patriotic”.
With respect to the conservatives using the label, I am interested in knowing what the same conservatives would advocate under, say, a Democratic administration.
What are the criteria for being a racist? Demonstrated hostility to another group of people.
What are the criteria for being a patriot? Waving the flag and proclaiming “support” for the president? Demanding that no one ever question the decisions of the government? Professing love for a country while undermining its moral or economic structure?
Were the brothers Berrigan unpatriotic? Was Martin Luther King Jr. unpatriotic? Was Barry Goldwater unpatriotic? Was Helen Keller unpatriotic? Each of them has blasted the government and the society of the U.S. at some point, yet I would submit that they each worked to improve the U.S. from their particular perspectives.
On the other hand, I would be much more likely to label J. Edgar Hoover–corrupting the process of government, using blackmail to further his personal vendettas–unpatriotic before I would label Phillip Berrigan unpatriotic.
Some actions are clearly not patriotic. Jane Fonda, sitting on the seat of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun with a North Vietnamese helmet on her bubble head was clearly portraying an unpatriotic message.
Other actions are not nearly so clear cut, and I suspect anyone who claims to be able to tell “real patriots” is simply looking to exclude their political opponents through demagoguery. One does not need to think that Governor Dukakis was a viable candidate for president to realize that the “Pledge of Allegiance” bill that he vetoed was unconstitutional and that George H. W. Bush was being a demagogue of the first order in making that an issue in that presidential election.
I recall reading the memoirs of an old mafioso who expressed scorn for the Vietnam war protestors because, while he might have had a little “business” going, at least he was “patriotic.” Uh, huh. Buying cops. Buying judges. Terrorizing merchants into supporting the “family.” Flouting the Law and flaunting the illegal proceeds. Real patriotic, that.
I notice, for example, that the whole point of Goldberg’s article was to claim that anyone who supported the United Nations was, essentially, unpatriotic. That, boys, is demonization and that is why I oppose people who think they have the right to assign the labels “patriotic” and “unpatriotic” to other people. Simple demagoguery.
I know this is a widely expressed position, but, I disagree. To see what’s wrong, let’s apply the same principle other areas, and see how it sounds:[ul][]“I believe in women’s liberation, so I hold women to a higher standard in the workplace.”[]“I’m for civil rights, so I go out of my way to criticize African-Americans.”[]“I’m pro-choice, so I tend to be critical, rather than supportive, of the National Abortion Rights Action League.”[]“I support the rights of disabled people, so I take a cautious, wary attitute toward their ability to lead normal lives.”“I love my children dearly, so I criticize them at every opportunity.”[/ul]These examples are obviously wrongheaded.
They are also strawmen. Note that litost specified criticizing the country’s path. Therefore, your list should read:
[ul][li]“I believe in women’s liberation, so I will criticize efforts by women that are counterproductive to equal access in the workplace.”[/li][li]“I’m for civil rights, so I will criticize efforts by civil-rights advocates that are counterproductive to equal access in the workplace and housing markets.”[/li][li]“I’m pro-choice, so I will criticize actions of the National Abortion Rights Action League that seem to invite backlash from anti-abortion groups.”[/li][li]“I support the rights of disabled people, so I will criticize efforts by their advocates that will create unnecessary bad publicity.”[/li][li]“I love my children dearly, so I criticize their actions when they appear to be antisocial or inclined to stunt their development.”[/ul][/li]Note that in the areas of women’s liberation and civil rights you would claim that many of your posts on this board have been made with the intention of improving the situations that you see being counterproductive. Are you now telling us that you truly are opposed to women’s equality and civil rights?
Tom, your examples do not fully reflect litost’s comments, namely:
<<choosing to err on the side of being critical than supportive.>>
<<my fundamental attitude would be based more on caution and wariness than faith>>
Real patriots do not have a problem with fair, accurate criticisms of their country. However, when someone’s practice is to err on the side of being critical, or to cautiously, warily tend to assume that the US is wrong, that’s a different story.
tomndebb,
Thanks for chipping in. december,
You are taking what I said was my attitude towards government and placing it in irrelevant contexts. For example, the reason I may choose to err on the side of faith when it comes to my children is because I want to trust them and allow them to grow into responsible adults, and because I believe our relationship is more dependent on mutual trust than criticism. But, I don’t see that as the case with government. I think only by being cautious and critical of Govt’s actions can the country be improved. That also does not mean that I am going to be paranoid, and rarely supportive. I just tilt more towards caution than faith, as simpe as that. You are seeing things into this attitude that are non-existent, which is probably why you disagree.
The issue is what one thinks are “fair accurate criticisms”. Those are loaded words. The difference, I think, between you and me is you may criticise 2 out 10 actions, more often than not giving the vote of confidence to the Govt. You may be delighted to hear Ashcroft say that the Govt. has captured a deadly terrorist planning to detonate a dirty bomb. I may welcome the news but still wait for the complete facts. I would be wary of all 10 actions before I decide. Don’t extrapolate what I said to “I tend to assume my country is wrong”. I believe in my capacity to be level-headed, something you don’t seem to want to risk.
