The term "patriotic" has started to get under my skin. Since not long after 9/11, I began (as many Kossacks did) to notice the marked ramping-up of nationalism. Perhaps it was an understandable response to the horrifying events of that day, but it has not abated or evolved, as I think it should.
The US government responded to 9/11 in part by stoking both our fear and our nationalism, especially when Bush drew a line in the sand, declaring himself on one side and the "terrorists" on the other. Since then, it's become crystal clear that if you're not with him, 100% on "his" side, then you're by default on the side of the terrorists.
He has gotten away with making such hate-filled racist comments by cloaking them with patriotism. Patriotism is noble, and unassailable. If you do something out of patriotism, the implication seems to be, any and all ill effects are forgiven. In essence, Patriotism means never having to say you're say.
The unassailability of this concept is bugging me.
There is still an important place for love of country - or rather, to my mind, love of heritage, love of a people with which you have something fundamental in common, and a common hope for constant improvement of that heritage and people. But at what price?
Patriotism cannot be the sole guidepost. There are 6 billion of us, and like it or not, we share just one planet. What we're doing here in the US of A, is affecting undeveloped countries and peoples across the globe. Native tribes that have no industrialization and that are far, far away from the benefits of industrialization, are not, it turns out, insulated from its burdens. They are infected with our chemicals, our byproducts, our wastes.
Our mercury is in
their fish.
I have been partially inspired in this direction by Plutonium Page's great recent diary. It documents what some of us vaguely know, but what many refuse to admit.
And, as noted by gnat , the US is not a leader on environmental concerns, but a lagger. A significant part of the problem is that the effects of the problems are not confined to our borders.
It's time to acknowledge what is happening on the earth. Naysayers must, at this point, be relegated to the flat earth crowd. Truly, to recognize global concerns - to embrace globalism - is similar, I believe, to acknowledging that the world is round. So I recommend the definition and embrace of the concept of globalism. Kind of like patriotism, but on a global scale. If bad things happen to this planet, it will affect all of us. To recognize this calls for a globalist perspective.
Patriotism alone naturally excludes any consideration of globalism, because patriotism puts country before all else. While love for country has its place, it's becoming increasingly clear that this can no longer be the great determinant.
Our task is much like European countries' insistence on retention of individual identity, as they also developed the wider and more globally potent identity of the EU. Just as they (understandably) loved their respective countries and fought to retain individuality among them, so also they recognized the need, in the face of globalization, to bond together to be able to have a role of any significance in world affairs.
Another aspect of the concept of globalism is it provides a nice counterbalance to globalization. Kossacks all know, I think, that outside the US, globalization is a concept that embodies American greed. It is seen as the pursuit, by the US, of control of the world's resources, and the infliction of the US's "culture" on the rest of the world. Here in the US, of course, the concept of globalization is couched quite differently, and is praised, as the "new economy" and "new opportunities" and such.
Harmonizing the rest of the world's concerns for integrity, and retention of everyone's cultural identity and interests, not just American identity and interests, and addressing, finally, the concept of sustainability, leads quite naturally to globalism. It is, I think, a necessary philosophy, an unavoidable acknowledgement that we're all in one boat, together.
The question, I think, comes down to defining terms - like globalism - and spreading, and (unfortunately) marketing the concept. This should be, I think, a cornerstone of reform of the Democratic party. It is a much-needed push against the xenophobia and isolationism that has been heavily propagated in the wake of 9/11. It is a much-needed relegation of those who belittle environmental concerns, to the flat-earth corner where they belong. It is a much-needed acknowledgement of the unavoidable - and we all know that you can't begin on a solution until you acknowledge that there's a problem.