Since September 11, 2001, many antiwar activists in the United States have wrapped their dissent in the American flag. In an increasingly constrictive political climate, they are anxious to find ways to appear more legitimate. For some, carrying the flag celebrates the Bill of Rights, particularly the rights to free speech and public assembly. For others, it recalls foundational events for this country such as the Boston Tea Party and American Revolution that symbolize the struggle against the tyranny of colonial rule. People of conscience raise the stars and stripes to assert that "peace is patriotic," and that they are the real Americans. The U.S. government, by contrast, claims to be waging war in order to uphold America's core values, or as Bush puts it, precisely because "we are a peace-loving nation."
Disentangling the Antiwar Movement from the American Flag
"Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable meaning is nothing but an instrument for the attainment of the government's ambitious and mercenary aims, and a renunciation of human dignity, common sense, and conscience by the governed, and a slavish submission to those who hold power. That is what is really preached wherever patriotism is championed. Patriotism is slavery."
Leo Tolstoy
"Peace is the continuation of war by other means."
Hannah Arendt
Since September 11, 2001, many antiwar activists in the United States have wrapped their dissent in the American flag. In an increasingly constrictive political climate, they are anxious to find ways to appear more legitimate. For some, carrying the flag celebrates the Bill of Rights, particularly the rights to free speech and public assembly. For others, it recalls foundational events for this country such as the Boston Tea Party and American Revolution that symbolize the struggle against the tyranny of colonial rule. People of conscience raise the stars and stripes to assert that "peace is patriotic," and that they are the real Americans. The U.S. government, by contrast, claims to be waging war in order to uphold America's core values, or as Bush puts it, precisely because "we are a peace-loving nation."
Who will prevail in this contest to define the true patriots?
It is vital to ensure that U.S. opposition is clearly visible alongside the strength and solidarity of antiwar demonstrations around the globe. As activists in the United States, we need to distinguish our views from the actions and aims of "our" government, and build a strong movement. But we can only do that if our arguments against war are in line with our intentions.
The stark fact is that dissenters, no matter how noble, do not get to determine the meaning of patriotism. Although popular conceptions of U.S. history suggest that patriotism is about freedom, democracy, and creating a better world, in reality it has largely been used by the state to thwart the realization of these ideals. Patriotism, in essence, asks citizens to put aside their concerns and disagreements with the government, and to get behind the sentiment of "my country, right or wrong."
Historically, patriotism was used in the 1920s to back up efforts to deport "undesirables" during the Red scare. Later, during the time of the Second World War, it justified interning Japanese Americans in camps on U.S. soil. In the 1950s, patriotism was used to repress the Left through such vehicles as the House Un-American Activities Committee, and during the Vietnam War period, to silence resistance through slogans such as "love it or leave it." Patriotism has been employed to rationalize military excursions and state-sponsored violence, from the invasion of Grenada and Panama to illegally arming the Nicaraguan Contras.
Patriotism, in the past and present, is predominantly defined by those in power to bolster support for their agendas. Consider the ubiquity of American flags since 9-11. Immediately after the tragedy, millions of Americans expressed their sadness and solidarity with the families of the deceased in a variety of ways, from displaying wreaths and firefighters' helmets to lighting candles. Shortly thereafter, Bush called for a day of prayer and for Americans to fly their country's flag. While some had turned to the flag prior to Bush's urging, the change was unmistakable after his plea. Alternate expressions of mourning persisted, yet the American flag became the main indication of one's grief. It was soon difficult to find a house, automobile, or public space unadorned with the stars and stripes.
As the Bush administration rapidly manipulated grief into retribution, the meaning of this powerful symbol also shifted. Today, the same flags flown after September 11 stand for much more than sorrow. The flag has largely become representative of unquestioning allegiance to national security, a faith in government, and a willingness to strike at unknown enemies. This process of redefining patriotism facilitates the state's ability to exercise power for its own ends.
For more than a year, the Bush administration has been crafting a spurious dichotomy between patriotism and terrorism. Having initiated an unending and ill-defined "war against terror," the U.S. government claims free license to do whatever it wishes. Anything that promotes "security" for America- such as eroding civil liberties, dramatically increasing the military budget, or insisting on a war on Iraq- is now seen as justifiable.
In the name of patriotism, the Bush administration devised the overtly racist policy of registering citizens whose national heritage is Middle Eastern. The aptly named USA PATRIOT Act limits movement across borders, forces registration of foreign-born citizens, vastly expands investigative powers even where no crime is alleged, and labels dissenters as potential "terrorists." To question or oppose these policies is deemed unpatriotic, and disagreement is consequently silenced. What politician, after all, would have willingly chosen to vote against a piece of legislation with this acronym and risk being seen as un-American? And now, a second PATRIOT Act is in the works to further undo the freedoms that the government is purportedly marshaling its troops to protect.
Not only does the attempt to articulate dissent in the language of patriotism take on meanings that are out of our control, it also rings of parochialism in an increasingly interdependent and global world. Such language establishes a false distinction between "us" and "them." To return to September 11, victims from the twin towers included citizens of nearly every country. Almost more than any single event in recent memory, it should have been understood as a global trauma, binding numerous peoples and cultures in a shared grief. Yet once the American flags went up in large numbers, 9-11 became re-scripted as a national tragedy by those in power. "Good" America was now compelled to fight a shadowy "evil," thus laying the groundwork for future conflict and wars.
If appeals to patriotism are actually counter to the aims of even the most modest antiwar position, the other half of the equation in "peace is patriotic" proves to be just as inadequate. To merely object to a war against Iraq suggests that there has been peace all along, even though the United States and Britain have been bombing Iraq repeatedly since the 1991 Gulf War. More than a million Iraqi children have already died at the hands of the U.S.-driven UN economic embargo against Iraq, according to the World Health Organization. Such "peacetime" practices demand a movement concerned with more than just preventing a U.S. invasion and subsequent military occupation. As antiwar demonstrators in Munich recently declared, "Your war kills off what your peace leaves standing."
The Bush administration speaks of peace too, but as the ultimate justification for war, much in the same way that it contemplates using nuclear weapons in Iraq to free the world from the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. Whether in the form of overt military action or less direct interventions, U.S. foreign policy practices a peace that is really war, but by other methods. The goal today appears to be nothing less than increasing America's dominance on a global scale in order for a tiny elite to have disproportionate political and economic influence.
In the end, the attempt to mainstream dissent through claims of "patriotism" or "peace" unwittingly ties our nascent antiwar movement to the policies and institutions that create war. These two words are inextricably bound to the actions of the state, whether we agree with them or not. At a time when the United States has become thoroughly unilateralist, it is disconcerting that many antiwar activists would still focus on appeals to the U.S. government, which has made it perfectly clear that it will not be constrained by the United Nations, much less world opinion. Why would this same government be any more responsive to its own citizens?
As part of this unilateralism, Bush has demanded a regime change in Iraq and is posturing against North Korea. Many activists, in turn, have called for a "regime change at home." While both the Iraqi and U.S. regimes are impediments to a free and safer world, a change of leadership in these two specific cases will not alter the conditions that give rise to systemic violence in both societies. Nor are these problems exclusive to Iraq and the United States. In dictatorships or nation-states, when the few attempt to govern the many, coercion- either through warfare or subtler methods- is the only recourse to sustain centralized power. Statecraft of any kind is not the answer. We need a reconstruction of society that places power in accountable, directly democratic institutions instead.
To say that "peace is patriotic" ultimately buries demands for genuine freedom for all beneath a misplaced desire for legitimacy. If we want to invoke the liberatory dimensions of U.S. history, however limited by their own times, then let's look to the New England tradition of town meetings, experiments in worker self-management, the community self-help programs of the Black Panthers, and the movements to contest and redefine notions of sexuality and gender, among others. Let's forget about appearing patriotic. Rather, let's insist on the ability of all people and communities to self-determine and control their own destinies in a global society premised on cooperation and mutual aid. As the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta once proclaimed, "Everything depends on what people are capable of wanting."
* * *
We hope that this essay will spark a constructive dialogue among antiwar activists, and challenge our allies' ideas regarding patriotism and social change. In today's political climate, those of us who are willing to speak out against the rising tide of militarism need each other more than ever. Let's work together to demand a world where direct democracy, freedom, and diversity prevail.
Free Society Collective, Central Vermont
February 2003
info@freesocietycollective.org
Patriotism, to me, is a part of nationalism. Nationalism is toxic. The concept of the nation state is going to have to change significantly in order for humanity to survive, in my opinion. The type of nationalism we have known is becoming obsolete, in part because we can communicate globally nearly instantaneously. It is no longer necessary to organize the species by region or continent. We are beginning to learn how to organize ourselves because we can communicate with each other across distance and know what's happening all over the world. This past weekend is evidence of that.
The people who are hanging on to the old way, those in "power," seek to dominate and enslave the world and establish a global hegemony rather than see the people of earth be free.
I have distributed a couple of thousand of bumper stickers that say "Impeach Bush" and has a rendition of the US flag. What the author of this article says is true. I sought to use that, somewhat cynically perhaps, to access the part of the viewer's mind that accepts things with flags on them. I considered whether or not I thought it was ethical to do this, and decided that it is ethical. In reading this article I am reconsidering that.
I do think that the Bush cadre needs to be removed from office, and that the US Constitution is the way to do it. I am convinced that even by centrist standards these people are criminals, let alone by the standards of those on the left. Thus the bumper stickers.
Anyway, right on...thanks for posting the article.
Posted by: Walter Zeichner on February 17, 2003 07:12 PM
A true patriot seeks the truth and acts accordingly. A true patriot understands how he is manipulated by the forces of our modern life and makes informed decisions - not blind ones.
It has less to do with flying a flag or not, than it does with making patriotic choices in the way you behave as a "consumer".
To live we need food, clothing, shelter. We need to "consume" to live..but not to the degree we do it today.
It could be about ripping labels off your clothes so you don't advertise for corporations for free.
It could be about spending what money you do have at a thrift store and not the GAP.
It could be about buying organic food when you can afford it.
It could be about "boycotting" corporations that behave in ways that you do not agree with. (If the majority in this country understood how Heinz makes ketchup or how McDonald's makes burgers, they would be disgusted and possibly make better choices.)
It could be about informing those that are uninformed about the labor practices of big business so they can make better decisions on where to spend their money.
It could be about promoting independant sources of news that you will not see on CNN, CBS ABC.
It could be about turning off the TV and not throwing "Joe Millionaire" parties. A lot of good people suffer from TV addiction.
It could be about resisting the temptation to buy the things you want but don't need and saving for the ones that you do. (We are barraged every day with 1000's of ads to buy "stuff" and we have a president that encourages us to go out and "shop" to stimulate the economy and fight terror - when no one has any money in the first place...)
I am not suggesting we all move out of the cities and live off the grid, that is impossible. But a little bit of that attitude, the attitude of the informed, "patriotic" consumer, can go a long way in dictating the way our gov't behaves.
For better or worse, we are citizens of a "global economy" and we need to act as if we understand that. To be a true patriot could be seen as being an informed consumer and citizen of the world.
The more people that understand how the food they buy is grown and processed and how the clothes they wear are manufactured and produced, the more people that will understand the US's role in the world and will potentially show up next to you and me at the next anti-war march...
It is about where and how we spend those dollars...not US flags and peace signs.
-an opinion of one
Posted by: jb on February 18, 2003 08:12 AMJust to play devil's advocate, saying "peace is patriotic" could be used as a way to get folks involved in the political sphere by saying its patriotic to take a political stance, leading to more political activity and thought in America, leading to a more sophisticated and politically educated populus, making it easier to get folks involved in political action becuase they are already somewhat informed about the political situation.
Posted by: dasdf on February 18, 2003 08:13 PMLook it's all well and good to point out that patriotism has been tied to a lot of heinous actions. But the anti-war movement needs all the allies it can get. Elitism is not going to stop a war or keep Bush from getting re-elected. If anything the closed nature of peace movement hurts it's appearance in the eyes of most of the population. No, you don't have to like it, but the middle gets more support, and support is what we need right now.
Posted by: chris on February 18, 2003 10:26 PMThe anti-war movement needs people who are anti-war. If you're anti-war, speak your mind, but if you're a patriot, you're allied with the worst. Its nice and dandy to have all the flag-bearing (including sino-soviet as well as "democratic" from the US) join us but when it comes down to the grit of it, we need people that WOULD burn the ruling flag in front of a million people to show that a flag means nothing but oppression. Just remember you can wave a peace flag forever but it doesn't get anything done..
Posted by: Wrench on February 18, 2003 11:08 PMI think this article is right on! To those who think patriotism has anything sustainable to contribute, I ask you to think again. Forbid it and this war starts, it won't matter how high you wave the US flag, you will still be branded a traitor. There is good reason to associate Patriotism with war. That's the only time its carcass is taken out of the closet.
Peace is when we recognize our common humanity and common ecology, not some bunch of arbitrary borders. Free society makes some good points about doing projects with a lack of reference to nationalism. After all, isn't the utopian dream of a peaceful world one without flags and borders,
sharing the bounty of the earth?I say "workers of the world unite!" and am labled a "traitor" or "unamerican" Damn right! and I'm anti-every other flag also. It freaks me out that people waste precious time engaging in discussions about the care of the flag and its ritual fetishization.
Burn the rag and let's get busy making the planet a better place!
Finally. to those who bring up the men who died for my freedom, I sure hope that freedom includes the right to evolve beyond nationalism.
In solidarity with humanity,
MarkResist
I wrote this reply in response to receiving the above article as an email. I hope it's not too long for a comment, and i hope it makes some sort of sense. -hillary
"I am a patriot and I love my country
Because my country is all I know
I want to be with my family
With people who understand me
I got nowhere else to go
I am a patriot
...
And I ain't no communist, and I ain't no capitalist
And I ain't no socialist
and I sure ain't no imperialist
And I ain't no democrat
ain't I ain't no republican either
And I only know one party
and it's name is freedom
I am a patriot" - Little Steven, I Am A Patriot
"Love My Country - Fear My Government" - Bumper Sticker
I feel like the essay, "Disentangling the Antiwar Movement from the American Flag," while it brings up valid points on the problems of using patriotism as a way of mainstreaming anti-war messages, has some major blind spots. I have no love for the artificial legal constructs that are states and countries (well, that is not entirely true, since i have much love for the state where i live, maine, and maybe that informs where i am coming from in these thoughts.) But love for one's lower-case "c" country, where family is from, the ideals one relates to this country, this is what patriotism is to most people that i know who identify as patriots and who are against this war. Patriotism and Nationalism do NOT have to be the same thing.
This essay states, "The stark fact is that dissenters, no matter how noble, do not get to determine the meaning of patriotism. ...Patriotism, in the past and present, is predominantly defined by those in power to bolster support for their agendas." Why? Since when did we allow those in power to take ownership of words? The US government also justifies its past and present actions by repeatedly invoking the words "freedom", "justice", "security." Do we cede definition of those words, never using them or the ideas held in them, in our discussions opposing this war? To most people I know who are invoking patriotism (from their hearts, not simply as a chosen tactic) in their calls against the war, they hold to the distinction once expressed by Dr. Clyde Wilson, that "Patriotism is the love of a land and its people, Nationalism is the love of a government." I don't understand why people should not hold that definition of patriotism, and let it inform their actions against the war, if that is a belief that truly resonates with them.
The essay states, "Not only does the attempt to articulate dissent in the language of patriotism take on meanings that are out of our control, it also rings of parochialism in an increasingly interdependent and global world. Such language establishes a false distinction between 'us' and 'them.'" I understand where this statement is coming from, but again, i feel like it is allowing those in power to define patriotism as nationalism, that being patriotic means believing that one's country is better than all others. But from experience, i know for many people, patriotism is deeply connected to sense of place. It is a deep love of where one is from - not claiming that it is better or should dominate other places, but that it is simply something of deep meaning and rootedness. I see the concept that we are living in an "interdependent and global world" used frequently by anti-war activists. Without even going into depth of how much of today's "global world" was created out of imperialism and corporate globalization, i just hope people know what an abstract concept a "global world" is. The patriotism held by most people I know who are against the war is rarely a deep love of the massive imperialist legally-created United States of America. It is more a regionalism, a connection to place, what one knows, relatively concrete and small. Globalism is so large and abstract, it is much more of an ideal, a concept, and, from experience, it is not something that one can so easily feel a close connection to or understanding of as one can "one's country." The global world is made up of millions of these small communities where people have their roots and connections.
The essay mentions how after 9-11, "Bush called for a day of prayer." Bush, and numerous others in power, have called for horrible actions to take place in the name of religion, at least as frequently as they have in the name of patriotism. Some of the most evil acts in history have occured in the name of religion. Does that mean that we, as activists against the war, need to disavow ourselves from invoking the tenets of religion in calling out against the war? I am not religious in any traditional sense, but it makes no sense to me to say that we should somehow rid the movement of Catholic anti-war activists or their messages due to the Crusades or any number of other ways christianity has been redefined and used to fulfill the agendas of those in power.
The essay continues, "As activists in the United States, we need to distinguish our views from the actions and aims of 'our' government, and build a strong movement. But we can only do that if our arguments against war are in line with our intentions." This statement worries me. I may be misreading, but it seems to infer that all of our intentions must be the same. If a strong movement (and should it not be many strong movements?) requires everyone holding the same arguments and intents, i want no part of it. And i think few others will either, it will weaken itself if it tries to set out what ideals are acceptable among anti-war activists. I would guess that many of the people in agreement with this essay are also those who call for diversity of tactics when it comes to street actions. How does this differ?
The essay concludes, "Let's forget about appearing patriotic." If patriotism is something that someone is just lightly chosing appear, then yes, they should probably forget about it. But what of those for whom patriotism is a deep part of their identity and beliefs? This is not a small amount of people. Do we ask queers, punks, feminists, communists, christians, to forget about *appearing* their identity, their beliefs? Patriotism is a real identity with real beliefs. And like those other identities, it is distorted by those in power. It should not have to be used by people who do not agree with it, but i see no reason either why it should be somehow removed from the movements. Is it really a problem to have "Peace is Patriotic" signs next to signs reading "Fuck the government"? I am glad that this essay was written, it articulates a lot of discussion that i've been hearing among anti-war activists. But i hope it only generates more discussion, and does not lead people to feel the need to silence or expel certain ideals and beliefs from the movements against war (not that this is even truly possible.) We need more communication, we need to talk and find out where each other are coming from. I don't think anyone has a fully developed and comprehensive argument against this war or this system, but we all have pieces. We need to listen and exchange. Isn't it more radical to talk with patriots about their beliefs, to talk with peace activists about their beliefs, to educate each other about the imperialist history of this nation and also of what peace becomes without justice and freedom and also of what it means to feel a deep sense of place and love of country, than it is to call for expulsion of certain ideas within "our movement?"
Posted by: sterren on March 6, 2003 04:23 AM
Many of my activist acquintences utterly disdain the American flag and, other than the red flag and I hope Tibetan prayer flags, disdain flags in general because they also have arguments about nationalism and patriotism. I am sorry that their arguments seem pretty thin. Not that the critique of American policies isn't correct from stem to stern, but because there is nothing inherently wrong with being proud of identifying with your family, tribe, community or nation and hoisting a flag as if as a prayer to represent that pride in who you are.
This article was forwarded to me by a friend because, in the face of so many ponderously intellectual activist friends who hate this or that, I have chosen to use the undeniable power of the American flag in a jui jitsui type effort to confront the huge number of Americans who do have a mindless deference to the flag to try getting them to consider what values they really place in the flag. I do so in hopes that they will join the effort to bring new values to Old Glory.
The author of the above article clarified his tone and the premises of his attempted logic by using the Leo Tolstoy quote. Tolstoy chose to focus on the negative and described patriotism at its worst, not it's simplest. Arendt's quote is is similarly distorted.
The author of the above article bases his/her whole article on the idea that we are powerless in the face of the definitions foisted on us by an overwhelming government force. I'm sorry but the nature of the protest movement that I am proudly a part of is a celebration of our power not our powerlessness. We can "recapture the flag" and give it new meaning. Meanings are not out of our control! If so we the people wouldn't have had as much success as we have fighting for the word "organic". In a Democracy no brand of patriotism is about powerlessness, it is about eternal vigilance against tyranny. Do we have a Democracy? Not yet, not one that I am proud of. Are we on the way to making it something to be proud of? I am and I hope you will come along.
The writer ends by stating that we should work together to "demand" a world where direct democracy, freedom and diversity prevail. Other than changing the word "demand" to "create" I wouldn't want to change that statement. We can create such a world. I urge you to check out www.ni4d.org and vote on the National Initiative for Democracy. This is a major national effort to create direct democracy by a national initiative thru a constitutional ammendment "of, by and for" us all.
The man behind it is Senator Mike Gravel who is the man who read the Pentagon Papers into the National Record and who fillibustered against the draft leading to its demise. Check it out www.ni4d.org
Posted by: George Ripley on March 7, 2003 06:00 PMMany of my activist acquintences utterly disdain the American flag and, other than the red flag and I hope Tibetan prayer flags, disdain flags in general because they also have arguments about nationalism and patriotism. I am sorry that their arguments seem pretty thin. Not that the critique of American policies isn't correct from stem to stern, but because there is nothing inherently wrong with being proud of identifying with your family, tribe, community or nation and hoisting a flag as if as a prayer to represent that pride in who you are.
This article was forwarded to me by a friend because, in the face of so many ponderously intellectual activist friends who hate this or that, I have chosen to use the undeniable power of the American flag in a jui jitsui type effort to confront the huge number of Americans who do have a mindless deference to the flag to try getting them to consider what values they really place in the flag. I do so in hopes that they will join the effort to bring new values to Old Glory.
The author of the above article clarified his tone and the premises of his attempted logic by using the Leo Tolstoy quote. Tolstoy chose to focus on the negative and described patriotism at its worst, not it's simplest. Arendt's quote is is similarly distorted.
The author of the above article bases his/her whole article on the idea that we are powerless in the face of the definitions foisted on us by an overwhelming government force. I'm sorry but the nature of the protest movement that I am proudly a part of is a celebration of our power not our powerlessness. We can "recapture the flag" and give it new meaning. Meanings are not out of our control! If so we the people wouldn't have had as much success as we have fighting for the word "organic". In a Democracy no brand of patriotism is about powerlessness, it is about eternal vigilance against tyranny. Do we have a Democracy? Not yet, not one that I am proud of. Are we on the way to making it something to be proud of? I am and I hope you will come along.
The writer ends by stating that we should work together to "demand" a world where direct democracy, freedom and diversity prevail. Other than changing the word "demand" to "create" I wouldn't want to change that statement. We can create such a world. I urge you to check out www.ni4d.org and vote on the National Initiative for Democracy. This is a major national effort to create direct democracy by a national initiative thru a constitutional ammendment "of, by and for" us all.
The man behind it is Senator Mike Gravel who is the man who read the Pentagon Papers into the National Record and who fillibustered against the draft leading to its demise. Check it out www.ni4d.org
Posted by: George Ripley on March 7, 2003 06:00 PMThe retoric of this essay is a little over the top ". . . U.S. government, which has made it perfectly clear that it will not be constrained by the United Nations, much less world opinion. Why would this same government be any more responsive to its own citizens?" Because they are their own citizens, and they are elected/not elected (more or less) by them, duh. I could go on, but it would be tiresome.
A word is a symbol for meaning. Perhaps some of the conflict over how people feel about patriotism and the flag is due to the fact we each has a different meaning connected to the word/flag.
While many people here are anti-nationalist,- which is a valid position- a nationalist patriot can be anti-war simply by feeling (and expressing) that it is not in the US's interest to go to war. how can looking out for ones nation's best interest by anti-patriotic?
I would also add that abandoning words- just because they are used in a manner you disapprove- lets the opposition control their meaning and control the conversation.
Posted by: markmeyer on March 28, 2003 06:50 AMSomehow I think the person who wrote this article is too young to have been involved in the Viet Nam anti-war movement. Coming out of the 50’s, which was very repressive culturally and politically, “the movement” as we used to call it saw the things we opposed wrapped in the American flag and branded, in the marketing sense, as the essence of America. Too many young people, myself included to some degree, accepted the right’s definition of patriotism, and concluded therefore that America (or Amerika as some of the extremists spelled it) was the problem, if not the enemy. We still stopped the war, but only because it was so rotten that the truths we were telling could not be denied, even when the way we presented it were repulsive to most people.
The lesson I took away was that you must never ever yield one inch of ground to the totalitarian notion that to be American is equivalent to a particular political position. And like it or not, for most people, the flag is their symbol of America. To yield the flag and patriotism is to yield any possibility of ever changing this country for the better. People have to decide whether they intend to be a permanent opposition, demanding that the mainstream change, or whether they want to become the mainstream.