Something happened on Thursday at school that just really ticked me off...and since that really isn't the appropriate environment to vent about, I'm going to do so on here. If nothing else, I shouldn't particularly bother anyone since this is my space, and if you don't like, don't continue reading. I should also preface this with this: I would fight for the writer's right to distribute trash like this because if they can't, there isn't any freedom left. With that said, here is the text of a statement I received in my mail box, all grammatical errrors and logical fallacies intact.
"WHAT IS PATRIOTISM? Patriotism-if it is to have any value whatsoever-MUST mean the desire to right the wrongs present within one's own nation; to demand justice and equity and to oppose anything and anyone that stands in the way of either. Patriotism does NOT mean waving a flag, saying a pledge, chanting USA, USA, and then ignoring everything the Constitution says your nation was supposed to be about. It does not mean forced nation-worship, and if it does, then God help us...patriotism has become little more than modern idolatry, and is a concept with which we could do without.
Patriotism asks one to reify [sic] authority as manifested in national governments, and to believe, or act as if one does, that those who stand in the way of one's supposed national self-interest should be brought under heel. That one only ends up in the nation one does because of happenstance becomes irrelevant. Patriots assume they earned their status as the chosen. Pondering the word patriotism, might lead one to recognize the root patri (referring to the Father) as the basis of the word patriotism; patri being a reference to the male principle of: justice, protection, agency, etc. A principle which SHOULD be balanced, as an integral attribute of a human being, by an equivelent Female principle of: nurturing, interdependence, cooperation, and communion. Unfortunantly, such a balance is yet rare and what we have, rather than justice, is most often tyranny; rather than protection, we have a gilded (or not so gilded) cage--and woe unto any that would see the bars, let alone endeavor to escape them and show others the way out. The question--and the tradegy--of the semantics of the word patriotism, is that the SCOPE of that patriotism is typically quite narrow, un-evolved, and thus unenlightened. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The world is my country; all mankind are my brethern; and to do good is my religion."
If you made it through that mess, you are probably as appalled and flabbergasted as I was, or at least confused. Here is the response sent by my dad, an educator and philosopher...and who has a Ph.D. in Rhetoric, for those who didn't know.
It very eloquently expresses my aggravation with this nonsense.
"This piece is, as you say appalling. And it is a hostile use of power rather than a proposition to debate. Therefore, it probably comes from the unthinking left who do not want to enter into dialogue, but to assert their position with violence as implied by the attitudes portrayed.
"First, it attempts to gain audience acceptance through tyrannical power (must…), rather than persuasion, and is, therefore, self-refuting.
"Second, it claims to call for justice and equity yet denies those aspects to anyone who disagrees, again an improper use of power. This statement is directly against the founding values and ideals of our country. The tone of the argument seems to imply a “political correctness” with vehement opposition to all contrary voices.
"Third, it asserts equity as something different than justice rather than part of justice and thus misunderstands the concept.
"Fourth, [it attacks] the pre-supposed male-dominant aspect of patriotism of justice yet does not include the pre-supposed female-dominant aspects of nurturing… in the most important things so a second time, it fails it own test. Please note, anyone who has read Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, Buddha, Confucius… would know that those “female” parts are purported by the males as well. All of those males include love, which is strangely missing from the list, yet most males and females would include it as primary in patriotism.
"Fifth, having read extensively on the history of communication with a particular interest in political discourse very rarely to never is the “chosenness” aspect a significant part (exceptions come in the religious aspect of being chosen by God and when people choose to immigrate forming a new country). That part of the diatribe is arguing against a straw man set up from discourse 200 years old and is, therefore, “unenlightened” to use their term.
"Sixth, the term “narrow” being applied to others is the exact opposite of reality. This assertion is one of the most narrow-minded arguments I have read. Eliminating all competing voices is the exact opposite of the founding ideas of this country, thus demonstrating the need for a majority to continue to conserve rather than progress. The bigotry expressed in the violent words of the person’s definition are contrary to the rights we have been endowed with by the Creator as expressed in our founding documents, as well as violates the Bill of Rights. Which leads to my last observation:
"Seventh, one of the significant differences between the left and the right is the idea of evolving. Conservatives are trying to “conserve” the ideals, values, and principles upon which the country was founded. Liberals or “progressives” are attempting to change these elements to reflect their current worldview. Most conservatives would take the intended verbal slam of being called “unevolved” in this aspect as a complement.
"Who is a patriot? Typically a person who: believes in, supports, and defends a community or country based on love. Someone who wants to evolve and change a country can be classified as a reformer or revolutionary depending on the degree. This article misunderstands the use of language as the author is trying to define something for what it is not.
"The individual also seems to not understand the difference between a citizen’s responsibility of freedom and a citizen’s rights. License is doing what I want and determine is best for me, Liberty is the opportunity of self-determination. Freedom, when related to a patriot, is the opportunity and responsibility to do what I ought—not want. That ethical obligation of freedom demanded by patriotism is strangely missing—and, therefore, the love of country that believes in, supports, and defends is lacking from the definition.
"A last aspect missing from the diatribe is the people. A country is not the government but the people of a community inhabiting a land. This mistake assumes the government is the answer, not the people. In our nation, “we the people,” not we the government, are the primary issue—that is why we cannot evolve in the direction of this narrow-minded, bigoted diatribe but need to remain open to allow such naiveté to continue to be expressed. Conserving the rights of someone to express these anti-American values and beliefs is what the constitution and system is formed to guarantee."
While I would love to distribute this to everyone who read the previous statement (so pointedly and idiotically distributed on 9/11, to make it as offensive as possible--a very, very poor persuasive tactic, I might add), that would accomplish nothing and resolve nothing. The problem is this person made these unreasoned and disparaging remarks anonymously and delivered them in such a way to be as insulting as possible. This person needs to be open to debate and discussion--to open their ideas and biases to the realm of accountability--and take responsibility for spewing such ridiculousness. If you want to say something like that, don't hide behind a wall; stand up and say it, and take the results.
If the writer's goal truly is to "do good," I have to wonder what "good" this particular missive was intended to accomplish.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
excited
contemplative
exhausted
productive