From: silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva)
Subject: Re: Americans! *smile*
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:40:02 GMT

Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.004158.26266@morrow.stanford.edu>,
>silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>
>|> (Jon Corelis) writes:
>|>>(Holly Silva) writes:

>|>[ Corelis' well-worded lament in re: the bastardization of 
	patriotism in America deleted]

>|>	You've never listened to Common Cause or People for the American
>|>Way have you?
>
>I think the guy has, rasther more often than he cares for. The NAZIs were pretty
>long on "patriotism" you know. Any fool can get up on a platform bedecked with
>flags of country X. That does not mean that they have the slightest connection
>with the ideals that they preach.
>
>I have met very few US citizens who subscribe to the "principles" of Common
>cause or People for the American way. Most of the US citizens I know believe
>that freedom and justice are the right of all peoples and that the US has a
>monopoly on neither the practice  nor the disemination of such ideas.
>
	Phill, do your homework next time. Neither of the organizations
mentioned above are anything less than liberal and pluralistic in out-
look. The choice of the title 'People for the American Way' for Mailer's
group was made specifically to throw this kind of language back into the
teeth of those who'd appropriated it for their petty, vicious right-wing
agendas, the premise being that the _real_ American Way is in direct
opposition to the sort of narrow jingoism that is usually associated with
this kind of language today.

>Groups that wrap themselves in the flag do so for one reason - because what they
>preach is so disgusting that they know that they need something to hide behind.
>By hiding behind the flag they claim that to criticize them is to criticize
>America and what it stands for.
>
	[Partial quote from Corelis, deleted above]. "When was the last 
time you heard any American publicly or privately invoke patriotism in an 
appeal in support of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, the values
of the Constitution, or the Whitmanesque vision of America as a unique and
mystical bond of human individualism and fusion?" Implicit in this
question is the recognition that such an elevated appeal to patriotism
is possible.

>|>	Most of the 'people of the world' today either,
>|>
>|>	1) engage in this sort of jingoism themselves: (Serbia, Iran,
>|>	Iraq,  Le Pen's party in France, Russian nationalists in 
>|>	Russia, every nationalist splinter group now active in the
>|>	former Soviet Union.....etc., Argentina in re: the Malvinas/
>|>	Falklands.......etc.)
>
>How come when the
>right make comparisons with other countries it is only to show how other
>countries are as despicable?
>
	Not despicable, Phill, faillible. You seem much more inclined
than I do to regard nationalism per se as dispicable.  

>Fact is that Le Penn in France is considered by the vast majority of French
>people to be an evil bigot. To judge France by Le Penn would be as monstrous as
>judging the USA by David Duke or Perot.
>
	This comment is priceless. It beautifully illustrates the 
ignorance-masquerading-as-erudition that characterizes too many 
educated Europeans (and other first worlders) views of America, and
the American political scene. Little jug-ears Perot is quite a martinet,
but he's hardly comparable with former Grand Wizard, David Duke.
	That you choose to group them together with French 
xenophobe Le Pen, without any distinction between them, suggests you've
been reading too many euro-socialist political tracts lately, in lieu 
of a balanced diet of both mainstream and off-center media. 


>|>	2) live in societies which only quite recently eschewed this
>|>	form of behavior: (Germany, Britain, Japan)
>
>The case of GB is quite different to what you claim. Fact is that GB gave up on
>the out and out capitalist stuff in the 1850s and began pretending that it was
>recreating the Roman Empire on a global scale. This is why I had to spend four
>years learning Latin and Greek. By the 1930s this wasn't fooling anybody, not
>even the British and the question was no longer "how can the empire be
>preserved" but "how can it be dismantled safely".
>
>
	There was a great deal of patriotic jingoism in Britain's 
quest for Empire well after the 1850's. The real blow to jingoism
didn't come until the First World War killed off nearly an entire
(male) generation of Britain's gentry class. Patriotism, in forms 
which would be considered embarrassingly gauche today, continued
to play a part in British politics well into the early 1960's. 
	Patriotism, and honor were certainly _invoked_ by the 
British leadership during the Boer War, fifty years after the date
you cite above. It seems strange indeed that an anglo-South 
African like yourself would manage to forget this. Strange or
convienient. 
	Do you consider South Africa to be a part of the modern
US neo-colonial empire, on the grounds that we helped your parents'
generation set up Apartheid in the '50's, or a part of the British
Empire, on the grounds that anglo-South Africans still benefit
greatly from the socio-political systems installed under Britain's
rule?

>PS Till sends his regards.
>--
	How kind. Is he still in a pet over the fact that I'm able to read 
French? It must have come as a terrible shock to his Weltanschauung to
encounter an American boob displaying this 'unique' ability. He's
fortunate my German is so poor.
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker

	Follow-ups to talk.politics.* please.
--
======================================================================
|| Holly Silva			I have nothing terribly clever to say||
|| Applied Earth Sciences	today.  You're in luck.		     ||
|| Stanford University						     ||