I am an American. I am also an American citizen, which is not exactly the same as being American. I was born
in Pittsburgh. I spent 9 years in St. Louis, 10 years in Northern and Central California, and I have been in Houston for 3 years now. I have no intention of denying my American patrimony. I have no intention of leaving the United States.
I am patriotic when it comes to my country. I am not comfortable with the current State of my country. A country (patria) is distinct from the State (civitas). Following Pope John Paul II and St. Josemaría Escrivá, I embrace patriotism as a virtue; I abhor nationalism.
I am not turned off by the sight of the American flag. The flag, for me, represents the totality of the American reality. The very patrimony handed on to me is signified by that flag. It encompasses the deepest and most lasting realities of American culture, such as language, religion, culinary traditions, communication, education and infrastructure, though it also symbolizes those more transitory and fluctuating realities such as economic and political policy. These latter elements are not America. They are not even the most important aspects of America.
Politics, be it domestic or foreign, operates at a secondary level. It is not un-American to critique these policies, just as it was not un-Russian or un-Polish to critique statist socialism during the 20th century. Politics is in flux. Economics is in flux. It is true that they influence culture, but the relationship is not symmetrical. States rise and fall. Culture subsists beyond. Culturally, I am an American. Forever.
The American flag predates the current power structures of the United States, which rose rapidly after World War II. The American flag predates the consolidation of local markets into a national economy, which is not as “free” as it claims, and it most certainly predates the Leviathan of global capitalism.
The flag itself is a contradiction. It bears thirteen stripes, symbolizing the original colonies whose local policies and regional identities were joined loosely as a confederacy. The fifty stars symbolize the forced union of states under a federal mantel (hence, the stars in isolation serve as a maritime flag). I believe the true America is more stripes than stars. But I’ll take the stars. The flag is forever a symbol of the tension between local, independent traditions and a mass-scale political and ecnonomic unity.
The flag, to my recollection, has been displayed in four posts at Vox Nova. Michael Iafrate, Katerina, Feddie and Nate Wildermuth have used the flag in varying contexts. Iafrate and Feddie particularly have had to weather the storm of criticism from those who did not like the manner in which they portrayed and contextualized the image of the flag. The flag, it seems, represents different things in the minds of different people. Deciding what the flag represents appears to be a point of contention. Could it be that the tension it embodies in itself with its stars and stripes is indicative of the tension Americans experience among themselves when discussing what the flag represents. If so, then the flag is an apt and resilient symbol of the deepest and shallowest currents within America.
Those Americans who burn the flag, to me, often appear to confuse the flag with the political and military machinery of the United States. This is the same error, I think, that is made when the flags suddenly come out on the Fourth of July, as if the flag represents political independence. Either way, the flag is taken primarily as political tool or gesture. The fact that Title 4 of the United States Code outlines federal laws for flag etiquette compounds the difficulty in understanding that the flag is a primarily a cultural, not a political or legal, entity.
When I see the flag, I am reminded of the glory and the sins in the history of America. Patriotism is not only pride in one’s country (not necessarily in one’s State), but it is also criticism of the history of that culture. And there is plenty to be critical of in American history! But an American ought to be cautious in conducting this necessary criticism. After all, the very vantage point, language, resources and means of this criticism have been supplied by American culture!
To love America is appropriate for an American if by love we mean familial affection for our patrimony (patrimony comes from the Latin word for country, patria, which comes from the Latin word for father, pater). For an American to hate this patrimony, I think, is self-defeating and absurd. For an American to criticism his/her government is not necessarily unpatriotic, nor is it anti-American. To refrain from such criticism, I think, is unfreedom.
My flag is not my government. My flag encompasses that government, yes. But the flag more foundationally encompasses my culture. God, bless America? Please, Lord. God, bless the United States? That’s a different request.
March 16, 2008 at 12:03 am
Very interesting.
March 16, 2008 at 12:33 am
great post Poli!
Based on my limited knowledge of him, I believe this accurately portrays Thomas’ idea of true, virtuous patriotism as well. For him if I recall correctly, love of country falls as a subcategory of the fourth commandment. Just as we are to honor our parents, we are to honor our country (for the same reasons too). This did not forbid us, but rather commands us, to call it/them back to Truth when necessary.
March 16, 2008 at 1:59 am
A weak response to Alex’s posting.
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that liberal Catholics simply can’t be practicing Catholics, but cafeteria-Catholics. With their acrobatic word play games and straw-man arguments you’ve (again) exposed yourself as being more liberal than Catholic by this particular posting.
Vox Nova has become increasingly the laughingstock of the Catholic blogosphere. Certainly with a couple of good orthodox bloggers such as Feddie can’t hid the incredible obtuseness that has spilled over from your previous ‘Evangelical Catholicism’ blog to Vox Nova.
Pathetic.
March 16, 2008 at 6:07 am
There was also an American flag with this post: http://vox-nova.com/2007/06/08/should-catholics-follow-the-utopian-vision-of-modern-democracies-iii-2-a-brief-discussion-on-the-current-situation-and-its-development/
Of course, I think there is more than the mere presence of the American flag which is the issue. I think how and why it is used in a given post can be a concern. Is it for the sake of nationalism? Or something else?
March 16, 2008 at 8:39 am
God bless America.
Again, I thank God that I am not an intellectual.
“My country, may she ever be right. But, my country right or wrong.” Nothing, and no one, is perfectly sinless in this world. Surely, the US (differentiate among the gov., individuals, classes, races, religions, etc.?) has made mistakes and even sins, but we all have. I remember when I was about nine years old I realized that my father wasn’t superman. He is still my father and I love and respect despite his foibles.
I understand that I cannot support such acts as agressive war, genocide, etc., but the USA has not, in my opinion, ever done anything so heinous as to require me to turn my back on my country.
It seems some, famously Rev. “I Hate Whitey” and Obama (when he’s not lying to get votes) believe that America is completely evil.
I pity the person that doesn’t love his mother and father. I pity the person that can watch Old Glory pass and not feel a sense of love and devotion, a tightening in the throat, a flush in the cheeks.
March 16, 2008 at 8:49 am
T. Shaw, I thank God that intellectuals exist and have existed, for without them we would not have freedom. You would have called for George Washington’s hanging, and raised a teary-eyed toast to the king. You’re anti-American, and I pity you for it.
March 16, 2008 at 9:07 am
A few random thoughts on [more or less...] this topic:
Who was it who said, “I want to love my country and justice too”?
Idolatry of the Flag should have no place in the life of American Catholics. It’s a piece of cloth, ultimately. Yes, it is symbolic. But it is not “our country.” It is not “a living thing.” It’s. A. Piece. Of. Cloth.
Being disgusted by some of the actions and history of the United States is not the same thing as “hating America.” Any unsentimental assessment of U.S. history will reveal both nobility and depravity. Insisting on mentioning both, or expressing disgust for the latter, is not an act of hatred.
March 16, 2008 at 9:09 am
I think the post is a balanced reflection. An ordered patriotism does not require uncritical approval of the government or its leaders, and sometimes requires criticizing the government. However, criticisms should be balanced if they are motivated by patriotism, reflecting an (ordered) love of country. We all agree that there are circumstances in which patriots should criticize the government; we often disagree about when those circumstances are.
March 16, 2008 at 9:14 am
Thoughtful post, Policraticus. If there was something “cafeteria” about it, I missed it.
As Joe Sobran once wrote, we should love our country like we love our mother, not because she’s the best, but because she is ours.
March 16, 2008 at 9:17 am
Iafrate and Feddie particularly have had to weather the storm of criticism from those who did not like the manner in which they portrayed and contextualized the image of the flag.
Actually, I don’t recall hearing any complaints about the flag on my post. The only one that i remember complaining about it was Steve Dillard (Feddie), two days ago. And he admitted that he had not even read the post.
March 16, 2008 at 10:20 am
It would be interesting to get a Knights viewpoint as to this since they are involved in a special way with the flag and their Patrotic Degree
March 16, 2008 at 10:22 am
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that liberal Catholics simply can’t be practicing Catholics, but cafeteria-Catholics.
If there is something contrary to the faith in my post, I invite you to point it out. Perhaps you’ll also point out what is contrary to the faith in the passages I link to by John Paul II, which are ideas behind this post.
Actually, I don’t recall hearing any complaints about the flag on my post.
I remember others posting on their blogs their rage over the upside-down flag.
March 16, 2008 at 10:47 am
P:
A good reflection. Thank you.
March 16, 2008 at 11:51 am
Mike: Thanks for setting me straight.
I find it heart-warming that someone, such as yourself, who knows everything and can “read my heart” takes the time to tell me to go to hell.
I remember my youth . . . when I still knew everything.
Mr. P. – unless my math is off, or I missed something, you are 22 years old, and, and, and in such a short span of years you have achieved ominiscience! Homeric!!
March 16, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Nope, it’s just way-off math. And that’s not so much ‘Homeric’ as it is ‘Herculean’–forgive me but I love metaphors!
March 16, 2008 at 1:21 pm
A thoughtful post.
March 16, 2008 at 2:42 pm
It would be interesting to get a Knights viewpoint as to this since they are involved in a special way with the flag and their Patrotic Degree
I imagine a Knight’s perspective would be painfully predictable. That is, a Knight in the u.s.a. The Knights here in Canada are significantly more sensible.
March 16, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Poli,
Touche.
Tito
March 16, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Being a Knight here in the USA and having read Policraticus’ writing, I found it interesting, insightful, somewhat thought provoking. I didn’t find it objectionable in the least. Having said that, I find Michael Iafrate to be a jerk.
March 16, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Being a Knight here in the USA…
Tim F.,
Let me congratulate you, then, on this momentous day:
March 16, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Policraticus,
Thank you for this heartfelt and insightful reflection.
To whomever it may concern,
On being brought from Africa to America”:
Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there’s a God, that there’s a Saviour too:
Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.
Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
“Their colour is a diabolic dye.”
Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,
May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.´
Phyllis Wheatley
March 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm
The real problem comes when Catholics put loyalty to the nation state above loyalty to the Church, the law of God. Just look at what outrages the denizens of the Catholic blogosphere: an attack on “America” as if America is a person made in the image and likeness of God. The USA is a nation state, with all the problems of a nation state– it suppresses subsidiary mediating claims of loyalty, and it creates artificial divisions between the peoples of the world based on an arbitrary line drawn on a map.
But, attacks on bishops are fine. Vatican officials who dare criticize American foreign policy are subjected to ridicule, by the usual suspects. And when loyalty to “America” runs into loyalty to the universal Church and the memory of Christ (especially through Peter’s voice)– well, we know what side this group chooses. No criticism of the Church provokes as much ire as criticism of the nation state. And we are called “cafeteria Catholics”– I think there is a psychological terms for transferring one’s pathologies on another…
March 16, 2008 at 6:29 pm
“I imagine a Knight’s perspective would be painfully predictable. That is, a Knight in the u.s.a. The Knights here in Canada are significantly more sensible.”
I am not sure what you mean by that. They perhaps disagree with you on the flag. But they are good thinking men just like anyone else that do quite a service not only in the USA but in many other countries.
March 16, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“Just look at what outrages the denizens of the Catholic blogosphere: an attack on “America” as if America is a person made in the image and likeness of God”
It is not a negative thing to be outraged when your nation is attacked. I don’t think that goes against Catholic Dogma
“The USA is a nation state, with all the problems of a nation state– it suppresses subsidiary mediating claims of loyalty, and it creates artificial divisions between the peoples of the world based on an arbitrary line drawn on a map”
Nations and Kingdoms have been with us for a very long time and God has interacted with many in Salvation History. Yes can a “nation” be taken to a extreme when one loses focus of ones obligations to the world as a whole. Sure. But this is nothing new
“But, attacks on bishops are fine. Vatican officials who dare criticize American foreign policy are subjected to ridicule, by the usual suspects. And when loyalty to “America” runs into loyalty to the universal Church and the memory of Christ (especially through Peter’s voice)– well, we know what side this group chooses.”
I generally find views are far far far more diverse. Even in the “conservative” political element of Catholics.
March 16, 2008 at 6:59 pm
One more point: in the US, this tendency can become quite pathological. Think about the “hate America” nonsense. Where else in the world you do hear this kind of allegation against a nation state endowed with personhood? How many poeple hate Germany? Hate Italy? Hate Iceland? Hate Greece? Hate Ireland? Hate Gambia? Hate the Central African Republic? Hate Djibouti? Hate Takikistan? Hate Mongolia? Hate Palau? Hate Fiji? Hate Japan? Doesn’t this all sound vaguely ridiculous? And yet– people use this in rhetoric in the US context all the time. Why? Because nationalism has become almost a religion, akin to the Roman civic religion. And remember, our Christian forefathers dies as martyrs rather than submit to the official civic religion.
March 16, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Policraticus,
Very reasonable post.
God, family, country – in that order, eh?
MM,
Who fits your description? Are you referring to specific public intellectuals? and if so, can you substantiate your claims about them? I’m sure there are Catholics who don’t have their priorities in order, but this is by no means a specifically American phenomenon. I don’t think it’s worse here than anywhere else either.
March 16, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Zach:
Is nationalism worse elsewhere? Sure, it is particularly odious in China. And yes, other countries are guilty of mixing the faith and nationalism at times– I’m thinking of Poland here. But there is something about how Americans see America that goes beyond how most (specifically western) countries see themselves. It is less pride in a place, a history, a culture than love of an ideal, a pseudo-religion, one based on the false belief that America stands apart from other countries in upholding “freedom”– a false notion of freedom at that.
“God, famil, country”: you commit the primary error of nationalism. You forget that the nation state is a relatively modern invention and it wipes out all competing and overlapping loyalties that were once considered important. Your division totally violates subsidiarity. So I would say: God, family, kin, community, guild, region.. and so on, with country coming last.
March 16, 2008 at 10:13 pm
MM,
Once upon a time I wrote a post in which I asserted that God really doesn’t deal with countries, only with persons — that while we owe an earthly loyalty to the patria, it has no meaning at the deepest level. Someone asked me, “Then how do you explain why God called Joan of Arc to save France?” I didn’t have a good answer to that.
There are elements of “nationalism” that are new, but there is a very strong identification with country which goes back much further that you are suggesting. The French of the 1400s did indeed see a very real value to France as a distinct entity — even though the English court was still French-speaking. Italians of Dante’s time had a very clear sense of Italy as a thing which over-arched the rivalries between city states, and longed for a true Italian kingdom. The Roman empire held a loyalty so deep that Westerners considered themselves Roman long after the empire ceased to exist.
Clearly, there can be expressions of national feeling which set the patria up as an idol, but the way you are going on about it, one would think that _any_ expressed love of country constituted a disordered nationalism. Do not be so quick to assume that anyone with a “God Bless America” on his lips is some sort of raving nationalist. Part of charity is assuming the best of others — even others who differ from oneself.
March 16, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Oh, and good, thoughtful post, Policratus. Thank you.
March 16, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Michael [Joseph],
A well thought, well written post — likewise, thanks.
Darwin: I also found the following essay What is Patriotism by Fr. Stephen J. Brown, S.J. helpful as well.
March 16, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Poor naked wretches, whereso’er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiles storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your loop’d and window’d raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these? O, I have ta’en
Too little care of this! Take physic; pomp:
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.
If power had a body, it would be forced to abdicate. It is because it is fleshless that it fails to feel the misery that it inflicts. What blunts the senses (amongst other depravities) is surplus of material property. If it has no body of its own, it nevertheless has a kind of surrogate flesh, a thick fat-like swaddling of material possessions, which insulate it against compassion:
Let the superfluous and lust-dieted man
That slaves your ordinance, that dose not see
Because he does not feel, feel your power quickly:
so distribution should undo excess,
And each man have enough.
If our sympathy for others were not so sensuously depleted, we would be moved by their deprivation to share with them the very goods which prevent us from feelinfg their wretchedness. The problem would thus become the solution.
Terry Eagleton, 2003
March 17, 2008 at 12:18 am
“I am the decider-in-chief.”… “We will stay the course.”
The West, and in particular, the United States, has not, by and large, learnt the lesson of Lear. The USA is a nation that tends to find failure shameful, mortifying or even downright sinful. What distiguishes its culture is its buoyancy, its robust exuberance, its dogged refusal to cave in, cop out or say “can’t”…No group uses the word dream so often, except for psychoanalysts. American culture is deeply hostile to the idea of limit, and therefore to human biology.
———
In such a culture, there can be no real tragedy, whatever terrifying events may occur from time to time. The United States is a profoundly anti-tragic society which is now having to confront what may well prove the most terrible epoch of its history.
———-
What is immortal in the United States, what refuses to lie down and die, is precisely the will. Like desire, there’s always more will where taht came from. But whereas desire is hard to dominate, the will is dominion itself. It is a terrifyingly uncompromising drive, one which knows no faltering or bridling, irony or self-doubt. It is so greedy for the world that it is at risk of pounding it to pieces in its sublimest fury, cramming it into its insatiable maw. This will is apparently in love with all it sees, but is secretly in love with itself. It is not surprising that it often takes a military form, since the death drive lurks within it. Its virile vigour conceals a panic stricken disavowal of death. It has the hubris of all claims to self-sufficiency.
————-
“To be self-willed,” writes St> Augustine in his Confessions, is “to be in in self in the sense to please oneself, {which} is not to be wholly nothing but to be approaching nothingness.” To exist independently is to be a kind of cypher. The self-willed have the emptiness of a tautology. They make the mistake of imagining that to act according to laws outside of the self is to be something less than the authr of one’s own being.
Terry Eagleton, After Theory. New York: Basic Books, 2003. pp. 185-9
March 17, 2008 at 8:36 am
I also appreciate this post. And I am grateful for much in my American patrimony, as Policraticus well uses the word.
It is true that it would be absurd to denounce one’s own inheritance in its entirety.
That said, I would want to express two reservations about this post:
1) The best resources for criticizing America are not within the American tradition, but the Biblical tradition. The greatest American documents — and I do NOT minimize their authority — take for granted an individualist anthropology that is not Biblical.
2) I am not sure you can assert that the flag is a sign of country and not of State. It appeared during the revolution which led, briefly, to a confederation and then, very quickly, to a Federalist State. And that State IS connected to many of the crimes that you deplore. The current global system arose after WWII — but America was laying the groundwork for it during WWI, during the imperial adventures of the middle to late 19th century, and during the Civil War.
The flexible local-federal framework that you praise (rightly) is implicated deeply in the mechanisms of American expansion and consolidation. One could even say that American federalism is a weak substitute for real Catholic subsidiarity.
March 17, 2008 at 9:43 am
Darwin:
I don’t think France in the 1400s even comes close to being a “nation state” as currently understood. For a start, the French language was spoken by a distinct minority. But more fundamentally, the logic of the nation state is that it demands a relationship of loyalty between the individual and the state, without any subsidiary mediating institutions or overlapping loyalties. In medieval Europe, overlapping loyalties were the norm. No, I think Joan’s mission was to drive out a corrupt foreign invader (that was supported by mant local rulers), not to build up a French nation state. Of course, later nationalists employed Joan in that cause.
March 17, 2008 at 2:22 pm
MM,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply some super-loyal allegiance to a nation-state.
I meant something more like a love of the land and the laws that secure your freedom – inclusive of the social organizations you mention.
March 17, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Arise ye prisoners of starvation
Arise ye toilers of the earth
For justice thunders new creation
`Tis a better world in birth.
No more traditions’ chains shall bind us
Arise ye workers no more in thrall
The earth shall rise on new foundations
We are naught but we shall be all.
Then comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale
Unites the human race.
No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we’ll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They’ll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We’ll shoot the generals on our own side.
March 17, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken to my joyful tidings
Of the golden future time.
Soon or late the day is coming,
Tyrant Man shall be o’erthrown,
And the fruitful fields of England
Shall be trod by beasts alone.
Rings will vanish from our noses,
And the harnesses from our back,
Bit and spur shall rust forever,
And cruel whips no more shall crack.
Riches more than mind can picture,
Wheat and barley, oats and hay,
Clover, beans, and mangel-wurzels
Shall be ours upon that day.
Bright will shine the fields of England,
Purer shall its waters be,
Sweeter yet shall blow its breezes
On the day that sets us free.
For that day we all must labour,
Though we die before it break;
Cows and horses, geese and turkeys,
All must toil for our freedom’s sake.
Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken well and spread my tidings
Of the golden future time.
George Orwell, Animal Farm
July 4, 2008 at 10:56 am
[...] Reflections on the Flag [...]