While considering the particular subject of patriotism, I'm reminded of a particular post on my favorite blog, The Gutless Pacifist. In this post, Pen quotes from Christian thinker Stanley Haurwas on the subject of a patriotism that he respects. This commentary points to two types of patriotism, one of which I can admit to in a certain degree, and the other which occupies much of what I say in regards to patriotism on my Pacifism and Social Justice page.

The kind I can admit to is the kind in which the individual recognizes themselves to be a part of a continuing narrative of a specific place and people. In my own context, I was born and raised in western Canada, and as such, I am a part of the ongoing narrative of western Canada. I am shaped by the history of this region, influenced by those who have lived here, and tied to the geography of this area. This is my culture and I have inherited much from it, which is what leads me to say that I am a "cultural Canadian" rather than a "patriotic Canadian".

In recognition of all this though, it doesn't suppose that this particular narrative, this ongoing story of a people and the land, is somehow inherently better than any other narrative. This is my culture and I seek to understand it, but that doesn't negate other cultures or other people's narratives. Nor does it require one to pledge any particular loyalty to a political or social system. Understanding our narrative allows us to expose both the good and bad, and by being a part of that narrative we are empowered to write a new page for the future.

The other kind of patriotism, the one I cannot relate to, is this loyalty to a specific political and social system... The kind that negates other cultures and other narratives, the kind based on abstract "principles" that serve no real purpose.

The Canadian may say "we love peace more than anyone else" and the American may say "we love freedom more than anyone else", but both of these claims are ridiculous to laughable in the assumptions they carry... Who's peace? What is freedom? The Canadian may say that Canada is better better because it has a strong social safety net and the American may say that America is better because it has a strong military: yet to the Canadian a strong military may be a black mark, while to the American a strong social safety net may be a black mark.

Both sides are saying they are better for things - usually things that are little more than a historic circumstance - that the other side doesn't even value. One might LIKE certain values or circumstances, but I LIKE black-and-white monster movies too, and I'm not about to kill people for it or believe that I'm somehow better because I like them. It is this idea of principle-based patriotism that Emma Goldman speaks about in her famous quote:

"Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those born within this little spot consider themselves superior, nobler, more esteemed and more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot.

"It is therefore the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose superiority upon all others. The inhabitants outside that little spot reason in the same manner, of course."

Of course, this form of patriotism is nought but an instrument of control... It is one thing to exert force over another human being. All totalitarians have mastered this art of pacifying the masses through fear. But what escapes them is the greater method of domination, which is to make the masses beholden to the State. Where totalitarians fail, empires succeed by making people LOVE the empire. They uphold the principles and virtues of the empire and drive the person into a sense of loyalty which places the State above all other loyalties and reason, which in turn allows the State to impose the 14 characteristics of fascism noted in my previous entry.