| OCR Text |
This Concept Called Patriotism' By DR. KENNETH E. PETERSON Department of Sociology My, how the times change, There was a time, not too long ago, when hardly anyone would criticize a person who strongly and fervently affirmed af-firmed their love for this grand old Nation of ours. But now there are those who tell me that to be patriotic is, ipso facto, bad. One rationale which is sometimes used to support this kind of dubious thinking is to simply point out a bad example of patriotism rather than a good one. For example, they say that the soldiers of Nazi Germany were patriotic to an evil cause, therefore they conclude con-clude that all forms of patriotism are bad. It is an obvious truth that people can and do support unjust causes, but I most emphatically do not agree that all patriotism is bad. What on earth is wrong with anyone any-one who strongly supports a just cause? If we as a people do not fervently believe in our way of life, then can we trust each other? Because Be-cause if we as individuals do not strongly affirm that which we believe be-lieve to be decent and good, then, I submit, that we will not be inclined in-clined to strongly oppose that which we believe to be evil. If you do not strongly support the United States Constitution, then does it matter to you what kind of system we live under. Why not Communism? Commu-nism? Now there will be those who will grant that there is such a thing as good patriotism, but at the same time they will contend that the tendency itself is blind and therefore there-fore bad. But, is it not just as dangerous to live among a group of people who do not know where their loyalties lie? I submit that this kind of situation is even more perilous because you cannot be sure of what your neighbor will do next. He is a man who lacks sure direction. direc-tion. He is the kind of person who is easily able to shift his loyalties. Because a man has strong feelings of loyalty, is he also necessarily blind? The ideal, it seems to me, is that we should believe strongly in that which we believe is right, but with our eyes open! Hence, what we should espouse is that one ought to believe in something only on the basis of a thorough examination and a continuing attitude of open-minded-ness. At this point, however, there will be those who say that people who strongly believe something commit all kinds of atrocities in the name of their beliefs. Undoubtedly this is true, but there are also many people doing a great deal of good on the same basis. ' The crucial point is, however, how-ever, whether a man who strongly believes something is also one who desires de-sires to shove his beliefs precept by precept down your throat. One failing fail-ing among many of those who say nyet to the preceding point is that they fail to make a crucial distinction between ends ,and means. The fact that I strongly affirms the United States Constitution (an end) does not necessarily neces-sarily entail the following conclusion that I am going to ram (a means) it down your respective throats. All of this, of course, ties in with the sloppy use of the word extremism. By sloppy I mean those who treat all forms of extremism as being bad. The implication of their view is that extreme ends necessarily entail extreme means. If a man strongly believes in a given religion and he also strongly believes in the use of persuasion and not the use of force, then most assuredly extreme ends do not lead to extreme means. Hence the connection between extreme ends and extreme means is only a possible and not a necessary relationship. Finally, there is the subtle argument that nationalism is an evil because be-cause it stands in the way of world government. I will admit that the idea of a world government is frankly appealing and, in many respects, far more attractive than the present day world in which we live. However, How-ever, let us be as realistic in our thinking as possible in regards to this notion. In the pursuit of this ideal abstraction, do we move in concert with other nations or do we now surrender our nationalism unilaterally irrespective of what other nations do? In the immortal words of Shakespeare, Shake-speare, "To be or not to be, that is the question . . .", which some extreme ex-treme one would advocate would answer the negative right now. The most disconcerting aspect of all of this so-called idealism is that they would have us surrender our nationalism in a world setting where nationalism na-tionalism is a much more potent force than is the movement for world government. Hence these abstract humanitarians would have us surrender sur-render our system of government without any assurance that other countries coun-tries would reciprocate likewise. Concretely, man in his relations with others does not act in this manner, rather he views human relationships as being a two-way street. The great principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," implies the same idea of reciprocity. To put it bluntly, some of these abstract humanitarians seem to care more about the other people of the world than they do about us. In addition, the movement for world government has another structural struc-tural flaw. That is the assumption that the world's ills can largely be remedied by a change of systems. This is the same kind of thinking which plagues Marxist's Communism. They assume that the social ills of mankind man-kind are all embodied in the system of Capitalism and that if we would only change to Communism we would all live happily ever after. Realistically, Real-istically, the United States of America represents one of the noblest achievements in the history of the world. Our major challenge today is, primarily, a human relations problem. It is most emphatically not a systemic sys-temic problem. Granted our system of government can be improved, but lets not forget how darn good it really is! It is we as individuals who must improve! It is we as individuals who must now demonstrate greater love and tolerance for our neighbor! It is we as individuals who must change in order that we as a nation might survive! In summary, people will only suffer abuse and make sacrifices if and only if they strongly affirm that which they believe. In addition, the world of the past, present and future has, does and will belong to those who know where they stand. Unfortunately, Communism seems to understand under-stand this better than we do. |
