Patriotism Lost
This is a scholarly article I wrote during my freshman year of college. I believe it is still extremely relevant today. Have we lost what it means to be an American? Patriotism should not be a divisive issue. On the contrary, it ought to be unifying. Maybe we have lost what it means. But all hope is not lost so long as we’re fighting for it. I post this in hopes that it will bring clarity to the issue and, in turn, help bring about unity.
Patriotism is dying in the United States. With a simple comparison of those that fought during the Revolutionary War and the many Americans of the 21st century who do not even know the United States as a nation to be proud of, one quickly sees the sad, stark difference. The promotion of patriotism is a controversial topic in today’s day. There are many opinions, misconceptions, and arguments about patriotism, especially in the U.S. With all the controversy in regards to foreign affairs, civil rights, American history in the school curriculum and many other topics, patriotism for the U.S. doesn’t seem like something everyone wants to be part of. A big question is whether or not patriotism should be included in school curriculum. However, that can only be answered if patriotism itself is determined to be good or bad. Some say that it is an act of discrimination towards other ethnicities and cultures and that it discourages peace; others say that it means leaving out the dark periods in our nation’s history in school textbooks. Many will say that teaching patriotic principles engages too much in students’ emotions and should simply be taught as a controversial subject if taught at all. These are all, in my opinion, misconceptions on what patriotism is at its core. Patriotism can and should be used, through a better understanding of it, to better the nation and even the world as a whole.
Somewhere along the way, the meaning of patriotism turned into having a connotation that invokes closed-mindedness to the rest of the world and lost its truest value of being loyal to one’s own country. A love for one’s country does not mean loving it exclusively just as “you may put your family first, but to love only them is too exclusive. Loving all of humankind is good, but it doesn’t mean the same thing as love for a concrete object (the U.S.),” and therefore having the “obligation to know its history, culture, constitution, and geography” (Levine). By discovering what it actually means to be patriotic, we find that when patriotism is included in school curriculum, it is in the best and common interest of the people.
Without going any further, patriotism should be distinguished from nationalism. Although both terms support one’s country, nationalism is a more arrogant view that perceives other countries and cultures as inferior to their own and may even promote imperialism and discourage peace. On the other hand, patriotism is simply a love and a loyalty for one’s own country and gives the patriot a sense of pride and belonging to the country they are from or reside. As the famous and well-respected author, George Orwell put it, “by ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality” (Orwell 362). This must be understood, as much of the controversy stems from this misunderstanding.
With that distinction made and understanding that nationalism is not something nations should strive for, as it comes to resemble extreme ideologies such as Hitler’s fascist government in Nazi Germany, we focus the lens on patriotism and see that it is by no means imperialistic or deceptive. Benjamin Franklin’s political cartoon, “Join, or Die” depicting the new nation as a rattlesnake, exemplifies this idea, to which he later said to represent, in similarity, as a nation that “never begins an attack, nor when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is, therefore, an emblem of magnanimity and true courage” (Franklin). So, on the contrary, American patriotism has always been anti-imperialistic.
Just as in the private sector where owners and employees of businesses are proud and loyal to their company promote and encourage good service, a good image, work hard, and try to be the best they can be, the same truths apply to patriotism in the nations of the world. With this in mind, patriotism is not necessarily accepting of one’s own country at all times as the Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Dr. Igor Primoratz writes, “the object of patriotic loyalty is one’s country and polity, but this does not mean that a patriot will support any government in power in her country” (Primoratz). Patriotism calls for the constructive criticism of the government and the country: this is where the voice of the people comes from. As it is written in the Declaration of Independence, “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.” The rights to vote, protest, and even overthrow the government were all meant to be patriotic. Patriotism compels people to keep their country great, it unifies them in times of war and can even unify them in times of great internal conflict.
During the civil war, there was much strife within the United States, yet Abraham Lincoln used patriotism to bring people together as he said in the Gettysburg address, “our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” and with this, people connected in the same way patriotism can connect people today.
The idea that patriotism is deceptive in means by which school curriculum leaves out dark times in our nation’s history to adduce a nation that is perfect and has no reason not to be proud does not coincide with the truths of what patriotism actually is. It has been said that fascist societies use patriotism to “sugarcoat a nation’s history” and will only emphasize the commendatory parts in the history of the nation while leaving out the displeasing and controversial parts (Goodman). However, this entire thought is debunked once understood that “patriotism” is the incorrect term for this argument. As was stated before, these characteristics fall under the category of “nationalism” and this argument, therefore, provides an understanding of what patriotism is not. Do not be influenced by today’s divisive strategies of fooling people into a misunderstanding of a word!
But let me entertain the idea that a patriotic ideology leaves out dark times in a nation’s history in the school curriculum (though this argument is entirely erroneous) and so I can shed some more light on this misunderstanding. As Goodman continues in his article, he portrays the idea that since conservatives tend to favor patriotism they want to completely blot out subjects such as “the Trail of Tears, the Japanese internment camps, slavery” or other dark times in public school curricula (Goodman). When looking back at the first 150 years of this nation’s history textbooks and knowing that patriotism was a much more favored virtue, it is clearly seen that the intent in educating the next generation was to prevent ignorance and inspire national pride. David Tyack states that “after the revolution, there was one overwhelming motive for teaching history to schoolchildren and youths: creating good citizens…To sell their books, they appealed both to national pride and to personal fear of patriotic illiteracy” (Tyack 41). As this could seem to be used as a bad thing forcing loyalty to a potentially depraved government, there was actually a strong effort to prevent the ignorance of key principles and information such as the founders and the Constitution. They meant to educate their youth on the ideals of the founding fathers and the constitution, not punch holes in them. Charles A. Goodrich, a best-selling textbook writer, wrote in 1867 in the preface regarding his history textbook, that in the following reviews throughout the book “are lists of subjects from contemporary history, and of names of eminent persons not elsewhere mentioned in the History, selected from among those of whom no one would be willing to confess himself ignorant” (Goodrich 4). This is not to say there were not important tragedies left out. For example, there is no mention of the brutalities that were taken on by the Native Americans in the text, instead, there is mention of the hardships the settlers went through because of the Native Americans. For this reason, early America did not bring about the purest form of patriotism due to the lack of admitting this nation’s downfalls. However, the core motives were directly in line with what the purpose of what patriotism is. The intention of the textual histories during that time was to ensure that Americans in future generations would be knowledgeable on the basic principles and fundamental privileges and ideologies that the United States was founded on. In the case of the nation ever straying from those principles, ignorance was strictly meant not to be a hindering factor so they can do what is necessary to bring the nation back to them. This is what the main focus should be in the classroom today, not that dark times such as the “Trail of Tears” should be left out as these things should be realized, but at the same time not overly examined which in turn can affect a young American by discouraging him to take pride in his country by focusing on the bad instead of the good. Mistakes and tragedies can be turned around for the better when one learns from them, not when one wallows in self-hate.
A kind of patriotism that must be encouraged across the world and especially in the United States is one that has evolved from this basic understanding of patriotism that Igor Primoratz calls “ethical patriotism.” He says this is one that “would put aside the country’s well-being in a mundane, non-moral sense, and would focus instead on its distinctively moral well-being, its moral identity, and integrity.” It would not be “seeking to husband the country’s resources and preserve its natural beauty and its historical heritage, or make it rich, powerful, culturally preeminent, or influential on the world scene.” Instead, this kind of patriotism constantly strives for “moral requirements and promotes moral values, both at home and internationally.” This kind of patriotism is also aware of its past, both good and bad, and acknowledges every aspect “responding to them in appropriate ways, whether by offering apologies or making amends and by making sure such wrongs are not perpetrated again” (Primoratz). It is important to recognize that when patriotism is understood outside the parameters of ethical patriotism issues arise in the context of the very reasons of what anti-patriots are trying to protest. To differentiate between nationalism and patriotism is key when applying this idea to schools.
Now that patriotism at its purest form has been defined well enough to understand that it is, in fact, more than a mindset, but a tool that can be used for the good of a nation, many arguments seem to fade. In fact, there are some important advantages worth noting. Political participation is on the decline, especially for millennials, which could be because of the increasing lack of patriotic influence in schools. Dr. Peter Levine suggests that “patriotism promotes participation in national politics, including such acts as voting, joining national social movements, litigating in federal court, and enlisting in the military or serving in the civil service. In turn, broad participation makes national politics work better and more justly.” Patriotism acts as a catalyst to utilize the freedoms we are so blessed to have in the United States. Without it, people hardly care who wins the next Presidential election (except for when the media skews the view of a political platform to demonstrate that it doesn’t please the people’s personal fancies). Dr. William Damon’s theory of human development extends to the inclusiveness of patriotism. In essence, this theory claims that a child that is brought up to be strongly attached to a community or nation, when they grow to be an adult, is more likely to care enough about it to scrutinize and criticize by means of making it better. This is why children that are brought up to have a love for their country tend to be a more politically active citizen.
Despite all this, some will still say that patriotism should not be taught in schools because it engages too much in the emotions of the students and saying it is corrupt to attempt to force on them an opinion of that nation that may or may not reflect the opinion they may have formed on their own. The solution to this issue is, as has been suggested, that the best way to politically defend patriotism in school curriculum is to “teach it as a controversial issue” (Hand).
However, if the government were to take the stance of ethical patriotism and use that as the underlying principle for patriotism being taught in schools, there will be no harm to those who may view patriotism from a more worldly view, that is essentially non-moral, because of the ethical, and moral, all-inclusive backbone of the definition. Teaching the world’s view of patriotism in schools may not seem right as “we have no moral reason to be patriots of the more usual, mundane kind, [but] we do have reason to show special concern for our own country’s moral well-being” (Primoratz). Just as children are taught from a young age not to cheat, lie, steal, or hurt others, the same principles reside in this form that would be well advised to be included in the curricula. Therefore, teaching patriotism as a controversial topic is counterproductive. This is like teaching children that being loyal to their friends and family is a controversial topic and it is up to their young, underdeveloped, inexperienced mind whether or not they should be. Besides, patriotism itself cannot be taught, it must be instilled. It must be the constant undertone in each subject and lesson that every young American hears. Each individual will then feel ownership of this great country, a country that he owes his life and prosperity to, and a country he intends to help guide.
If patriotism continues to become more lost in the United States, we are doomed as a nation. Unlike any great nation or empire that preceded us, the U.S. is not nationalistic. There is no imperialistic agenda, no desire to take land for ourselves, and no room for fascist or communist ideology to take hold — because of the United States Constitution. Instead, we take on the responsibility of helping nations across the world. We helped rebuild our former enemies, Germany and Japan, after World War II. We helped in the rebuilding of Haiti after a disastrous earthquake. We helped South Korea avoid the atrocities of Communism in the north. And we set in place a peaceful government in Iraq for a time. Peace has always been one of the most important rectitudes of this nation. If we lose sight of this and forget that this understanding of patriotism is what has held this country together for so long, eventually it will be overrun. When this happens the world will slowly become an entirely different place that regresses into what the world was like before the founding of this great nation. We have seen that if learned at a young age, it will transpire into a nation of good citizens working hard and using their minds and voices to keep it great. In agreement with Abraham Lincoln, America is a nation “bonded together not by blood or religion, not by tradition or territory, not by the walls and traditions of a city, but by a political idea…by a covenant, by dedication to a set of principles and by an exchange of promises to uphold and advance certain commitments among ourselves and throughout the world” (Schaar 291).
Works Cited
Damon, William. “Restoring Civil Identity Among the Young.” Making Good Citizens: Education and Civil Society. Ed. Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti. New Haven: Yale UP 2001. N. pag. Web.
Franklin, Benjamin. “The Rattlesnake as a Symbol of America.” Pennsylvania Journal [Philadelphia] 27 Dec. 1775: n. pag. Print.
Goodman, H. A. “Only Fascist and Communist Dictatorships Alter History to Promote ‘Patriotism.’ Conservative Attacks on Curriculum Are Dangerous.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 3 Oct. 2014. Web.
Goodrich, Charles A., and William H. Seavey. History of the United States of America: For the Use of Schools. Boston: Brewer and Tileston, 1867. Print.
Hand, Dr. Micheal, and Joanne Pearce. Should Patriotism Be Promoted, Tolerated or Discouraged in British Schools? A Research Project Funded by the Nuffield Foundation (2008): n. pag. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.
Levine, Dr. Peter. “Should We Teach Patriotism?” Peterlevine. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.
Orwell, George, 1968, “Notes on Nationalism,” Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters, Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (eds.), London: Secker & Warburg, vol. 3, 361–80.
Primoratz, Igor. “Patriotism.” Stanford University. Stanford University, 01 June 2009. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
Schaar, John H. “The Case for Patriotism.” Legitimacy in the Modern State. New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction, 1981. 291. Print.
Tyack, David B. “Patriotic Literacy: History Textbooks.” Seeking Common Ground: Public Schools in a Diverse Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2003. N. pag. Print.
United States. Cong. The Constitution of the United States of America. Cong. Bill. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. Print.
