A Kinder, Gentler Patriotism
by Howard Zinn

Photo 1 - At PeaceAware events, Professor holds flag Upside down.

At some point soon the United States will declare
a military victory in Iraq. As a patriot, I will not celebrate. I will
mourn the dead - the
American GIs, and also the Iraqi dead, of which
there will be many, many
more. I will mourn the Iraqi children who may not
die, but who will be
blinded, crippled, disfigured, or traumatized,
like the bombed children of
Afghanistan who, as reported by American
visitors, lost their power of
speech.

We will get precise figures for the American
dead, but not for the Iraqis.
Recall Colin Powell after the first Gulf War,
when he reported the "small"
number of U.S. dead, and when asked about the
Iraqi dead, Powell replied:
"That is really not a matter I am terribly
interested in."

As a patriot, contemplating the dead GI's, should

I comfort myself (as,
understandably, their families do) with the
thought: "They died for their
country?" But I would be lying to myself. Those
who die in this war will not
die for their country. They will die for their
government.

The distinction between dying for our country and

dying for your government
is crucial in understanding what I believe to be
the definition of
patriotism in a democracy. According to the
Declaration of Independence -
the fundamental document of democracy -
governments are artificial
creations, established by the people, "deriving
their just powers from the
consent of the governed", and charged by the
people to ensure the equal
right of all to "life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness." Furthermore,
as the Declaration says, "Whenever any form of
government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the

people to alter or abolish it."

When a government recklessly expends the lives of

its young for crass
motives of profit and power (always claiming that

its motives are pure and
moral ("Operation Just Cause" was the invasion of

Panama and "Operation
Iraqi Freedom" in the present instance) it is
violating its promise to the
country. It is the country that is primary - the
people, the ideals of the
sanctity of human life and the promotion of
liberty. War is almost always
(one might find rare instances of true self
defense) a breaking of those
promises. It does not enable the pursuit of
happiness but brings despair and
grief.

Mark Twain, having been called a "traitor" for
criticizing the U.S. invasion
of the Philippines, derided what he called
"monarchical patriotism." He
said: "The gospel of the monarchical patriotism
is: 'The King can do no
wrong.' We have adopted it with all its
servility, with an unimportant
change in the wording: 'Our country, right or
wrong!' We have thrown away
the most valuable asset we had: the individual's
right to oppose both flag
and country when he believed them to be in the
wrong. We have thrown it
away; and with it all that was really respectable

about that grotesque and
laughable word, Patriotism."

If patriotism in the best sense (not in the
monarchical sense) is loyalty to
the principles of democracy, then who was the
true patriot, Theodore
Roosevelt, who applauded a massacre by American
soldiers of 600 Filipino
men, women and children on a remote Philippine
island, or Mark Twain, who
denounced it?

With the war in Iraq won, shall we revel in
American military power and -
against the history of modern empires - insist
that the American empire will
be beneficent?

Our own history shows something different. It
begins with what was called,
in our high school history classes, "westward
expansion" - a euphemism for
the annihilation or expulsion of the Indian
tribes inhabiting the continent
- all in the name of "progress" and
"civilization." It continues with the
expansion of American power into the Caribbean at

the turn of the century,
then into the Philippines, and then repeated
marine invasions of Central
America and long military occupations of Haiti
and the Dominican Republic.

After World War II, Henry Luce, owner of Time,
Life and Fortune, spoke of
"the American Century", in which this country
would organize the world "as
we see fit." Indeed, the expansion of American
power continued, too often
supporting military dictatorships in Asia,
Africa, Latin America, the Middle
East, because they were friendly to American
corporations and the American
government.

The American record does not justify confidence
in its boast that it will
bring democracy to Iraq. It will be painful to
acknowledge that our GIs in
Iraq were fighting not for democracy but for the
expansion of the American
empire, for the greed of the oil cartels, for the

political ambitions of the
president. And when they come home, they will
find that their veterans'
benefits have been cut to pay for the machines of

war. They will find the
military budget growing at the expense of health,

education and the needs of
children. The Bush budget even proposes cutting
the number of free school
lunches.

I suggest that patriotic Americans who care for
their country might act on
behalf of a different vision. Do we want to be
feared for our military might
or respected for our dedication to human rights?
With the war in Iraq over,
if indeed it is really over, we need to ask what
kind of a country will we
be. Is it important that we be a military
superpower? Is it not exactly that
that makes us a target for terrorism? Perhaps we
could become instead a
humanitarian superpower.

Should we not begin to redefine patriotism? We
need to expand it beyond that
narrow nationalism which has caused so much death

and suffering. If national
boundaries should not be obstacles to trade - we
call it globalization -
should they also not be obstacles to compassion
and generosity?

Should we not begin to consider all children,
everywhere, as our own? In
that case, war, which in our time is always an
assault on children, would be
unacceptable as a solution to the problems of the

world. Human ingenuity
would have to search for other ways.

Tom Paine used the word "patriot" to describe the
rebels resisting imperial
rule. He also enlarged the idea of patriotism
when he said: "My country is
the world. My countrymen are mankind."

Howard Zinn is a professor emeritus at Boston
University and author of "The
People's History of the United States."

posted on PeaceAware.com - fair use policy