A Taste of Skizz #16

The Cold War is rightly unlamented, but that struggle gave America a sense of purpose for decades. That struggle ended as I was coming of age. Through my early adult years, my country suffered from a palpable lack of direction or purpose. The attacks of September 11, 2001 brought that aimlessness to a tragic end. In the weeks following those attacks, as we anxiously wondered what came next, Americans discovered the true meaning of patriotism in our care and concern for our neighbors and their loved ones. It is often said that we "came together" in those anxious days; as someone who lived in one of America's great cities during those days, I unreservedly believe this to be true.

As time passed, however, America's political and media leaders manipulated our anxieties and our patriotism toward their own ends. Our government dusted off pre-existing plans for a war of aggression in Iraq and used the tragedy of 9/11 to convince us that what was once unthinkable was now necessary. Civil rights were trammeled; Muslims were increasingly viewed with suspicion. Our supposedly independent media* was pressed into service to sell this "crusade." We were told that we could only be with America or against her; by implication, dissent was unpatriotic.

For me personally, the search for spiritual meaning that first gripped me in my early 20s accelerated after 9/11 -- partly because of world events, but probably more because I learned that I would soon be a father. Informed by my deepening faith, I became convinced that my nation's march toward war was immoral. Increasingly, when I heard my fellow citizens sing "God Bless America," I felt the sentiment was really "God bless only America" -- a blasphemous sentiment, for sure. As reports emerged of Muslim immigrants and citizens detained without trial, and innocents held alongside the guilty for years on end in military prisons like the one at Guantanamo Bay, I was shocked by my countrymen's indifference. I questioned my patriotism. When I raised the flag outside my home, was I condoning the evils I believed my government was carrying out in my name? When I took my children to Memorial Day parades and other patriotic displays, was I teaching them that those things were right?

Ultimately, my sense of patriotism, or loyalty to my country, won out. If I saw the worst of humanity on the news or at political rallies, I saw the best of humanity in my neighbors as they cared for my family during my daughter's illness, and as they helped my wife and I raise a child with special needs. In church, I prayed for my neighbors' children fighting halfway around the world; they, in turn, prayed for my children. I could not imagine breaking faith with them -- such disloyalty would be dishonorable. I love my country -- and am loyal to it -- because it is their country as well as mine. That loyalty is a thing of honor, and transcends whatever I may feel about the government of the moment, or even about the American system of government generally. I still fly my flag as a symbol of those things I hold dear. My loyalty, however, is to those things themselves -- not to the flag, or even to the republic for which it stands.

Loyalty is not an unqualified virtue. Criminals and terrorists are often loyal to one another, but we do not celebrate that. We do, however, celebrate the lives of dissidents who kept faith with their countrymen by breaking faith with their rulers. Washington, Bonhoeffer, Solzhenitsyn, and Havel are rightly considered heroes; those who opposed them out of a misguided sense of loyalty are not. Most of us will find that loyalty in our personal circumstances includes some degree of acquiescence to the status quo (even if we disagree with it), but demanding that such acquiescence be thoughtful rather than reflexive does not reflect a lack of loyalty.

As you might expect, these views inform the stance I have taken in my debate with NES about loyalty in this game. If I question the virtue of blind loyalty to a nation state, surely I will not demand such blind loyalty to a region in NationStates. If I refuse to countenance the demonization of outsiders when life and death are on the line, surely I will not demonize outsiders for the sake of a game. And if I believe my loyalty to America is rightly understood as loyalty to my neighbors, rather than to the symbols and institutions of the nation, then surely my loyalty to Europeia will be to the people who form the community we call Europeia -- not to the symbols and institutions that may bear that name.

One of Europeia's core values has long been that that we do not define ourselves by reference to an existential battle with outsiders. This core value is the foundation for our community. If you want an example of a region defined by conflict rather than community, look at Unknown. Surely, that is not a model we seek to emulate.

As we seek to learn the lessons of the past year, let's not lose sight of our foundations.



*-Those of you too young to remember the run-up to the Iraq war should read a bit about what Judith Miller wrote in the NY Times. Seriously, Google it. You will never question the importance of an independent media -- or take its existence for granted -- ever again.
 
I agree with your premises as presented but not your conclusion. Always nice to read, nevertheless.
 
I notice a distinct lack of 'fuck'.


Personally, I think that you should only support a country if that country doesn't do things you wouldn't support a country doing.

Also:
 
Finally had the time to read this.... Wow, just wow. Great piece of work!
 
It's all great till you make some crucial and baseless assumptions in the final couple of paragraphs. It is not "blind loyalty" to be loyal to the values and ideas of ones nation/region/entity. "Blind loyalty" is the loyalty of terrorists, criminals - and indeed very possibly Americans and Europeians when they back up actions against the flow of their values, which are clearly wrong to them, for the sake of being loyal.

When America meaninglessly invades somewhere and you believe this is against the values of America, as you argued you can speak out against this without being disloyal. Even if a few label you as such, you know you can do so and be well within your rights. And you can do the same in Europeia. That is one of the great virtues of our value of freedom of speech. Because that is one of the things we stand for.

And you should not be ashamed to be proud of those values, and proud of what we stand for. Such loyalty is deserved, justifiable and honourable. It is everything but "blind".

And if I believe my loyalty to America is rightly understood as loyalty to my neighbors, rather than to the symbols and institutions of the nation, then surely my loyalty to Europeia will be to the people who form the community we call Europeia -- not to the symbols and institutions that may bear that name.

The loyalty should be not just to the people that form the community, but to the community itself and the values it stands for and espouses. Why is loyalty to people any less flawed that loyalty to the wider community? It is the integrity and nature of the loyalty that matters, not what it is to. Loyalty to people is exactly the same as loyalty to regions as a whole. It is not a problem, but it shouldn't come at the expense of ones values. It should go alongside them, in line with them.

What you're doing is saying loyalty to people overrides loyalty to values. And that is wrong, and it always will be. And as soon as you allow such loopholes to be made, you are on a slippery slope towards supporting whatever the entity you are loyal to does - regardless of what that is. Whether that is a terrorist blindly being loyal to his faction, an official soldier blindly being loyal to his country's wrongful action, or a lone individual blindly being loyal their friend who inflicts damage on a community to which they belong. To which they "hold dear". It matters not - the principle is the same - you have sacrificed your values for convenience. That is true "blind loyalty".
 
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” - Mark Twain

Certainly for me, so long as a government fails to redress the grievances as a result of their conduct, undermines civil and political rights, fails to provide a level of financial security and responsibility, and allows inequality and poverty to spiral out of control, it doesn't deserve my support.

Supporting your country is different to supporting the policies of your government, even if many governments would prefer blind obedience and an uninformed population so they can easily coerce and manipulate to their own ends.

Popular politicians are generally the worst ones, with few exceptions. Bush Jr & Sr, Clinton and Reagan certainly represent the worst of America both in terms of foreign policy and in terms of domestic affairs, and they have nearly destroyed America with decades of government incompetence (de-regulation, deficits, failed wars, and a tarnishing of America's international reputation).

This has compounded in inaction over the 2008 financial crisis, failure to win in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is in this century that the US government failed to stop North Korea developing a nuclear weapon, North Korea now seeks to develop the capacity to launch a nuclear weapon against the US. I think Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, if the US government fails to act just as it did with North Korea.

Partisanship could quite easily plunge the US into chaos, at a time when China is dangerously threatening US interests with its military threats and intimidation towards Taiwan, and the whole Asia Pacific region in the South China Sea. The greatest threat ironically at this moment is the corporate and government interests that helped make America strong in the first place, all America needs is another financial crisis, and that’s it for America as a superpower.
 
What you're doing is saying loyalty to people overrides loyalty to values. And that is wrong, and it always will be. And as soon as you allow such loopholes to be made, you are on a slippery slope towards supporting whatever the entity you are loyal to does - regardless of what that is. Whether that is a terrorist blindly being loyal to his faction, an official soldier blindly being loyal to his country's wrongful action, or a lone individual blindly being loyal their friend who inflicts damage on a community to which they belong. To which they "hold dear". It matters not - the principle is the same - you have sacrificed your values for convenience. That is true "blind loyalty".

Loyalty to values trumps loyalty to groups. I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear.

Loyalty to groups is rightly understood as loyalty to the people in those groups. You can argue that's a meaningless distinction, but I think I explained why it's meaningful to me.

By the end of your response, you are saying I said the exact opposite of what I actually said.

Why is loyalty to people any less flawed that loyalty to the wider community?

Loyalty to people makes eminently more sense than loyalty to the wider community, because collective morality is typically worse than individual morality. This is the philosophical underpinning of much of what I said above, and it's why I'm able to reconcile my patriotic sentiment about my country with my belief that my country has done abhorrent things (and not just in the distant past).

I don't think this is a particularly controversial assertion. Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society is a classic piece of political philosophy, and he makes the point about group morality better (and at far greater length) than I. If you haven't read Niebuhr, perhaps you've read Martin Luther King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail," where MLK cites Niebuhr for that very proposition, in explaining how segregation persisted in the American South despite the tepid opposition of many white people of good will. If you've studied any sort of post-mortem of Nazi war crimes, you've probably heard the argument made in that context also.
 
Personally, I hold much more loyalty to my friends and those who have shown to care for me than for any nation as a whole, least of all my own.
That said, though, 'loyalty' is more than just going along with everything they do. If I see one of my friends do something I know they're going to regret (like starting hard drugs), I'll do what I can to dissuade them from doing so, because my loyalty demands I try to see them happy in the long run, no matter how much they might kick and scream at first.
I think loyalty to a country could be construed as something similar: oppose your government whenever you think it makes a mistake as best you can.

Blind loyalty, like blind anything, is basically stupid, and can be dangerous at times. In many ways, the things the American government claimed it did to fight the war on terror could be seen as betraying its populace. Someone or something that betrays you should have no claim to your loyalty.

Then again, I believe that whenever a passenger receives an intrusive scan or pat-down at an airport, whenever a phoneline is tapped, whenever an innocent is detained indefinitely, etc, the terrorists win.
 
I think we're getting away from the point here talking about Nazi war crimes. I guess my point hinges around this:

Loyalty to groups is rightly understood as loyalty to the people in those groups. You can argue that's a meaningless distinction, but I think I explained why it's meaningful to me.

You have placed great credence on loyalty to people. I don't see exactly where you've explained how its meaningful, you've just made some emotional references. All I am saying is why not follow values, and apply those values to the entity that you are supporting to see if they past the test, whatever that entity may be. That seems like a rather more logical exercise than just arbitrarily saying people are always right and groups are wrong. It would be an entirely pointless exercise to just go with one or the other - the action of a fool surely, to pick sides based on whether its an individual or group, rather than based on fundamental values.

Going back to the original point of "blind loyalty" to a region/country, which you have tried to make out is what I proposing. I will conclude by saying very simply, it is not blind, if it is something you believe in. What is truly "blind loyalty" is supporting people when they have done something against what you believe in, and justifying it with some cooked up notion that "people come first" - and that means it's all okay. Well, it's not.

I think you and I draw very different conclusions about what our core values as a region are. I'm not sure we're going to see eye to eye on this, because you're determined to bury your head in the sand and deny a problem ever existed with regards to loyalty to the region. I think it did, and I think we have gone some way to addressing it, and we shouldn't look back now.

I think you've got mixed up with the fact one our core values is tolerance. And have morphed this into "not defining ourselves by reference to an existential battle with outsiders". We are a sovereign region, an entity, and we are in a game which much like the real world - is a constant battle between entities striving to better each other by various means. We can and must be tolerant, but we can't lose sight of reality. We must defend our interests as a sovereign region with equal vigour as we must defend our values of tolerance and freedom. That's what I believe in.
 
I think you and I draw very different conclusions about what our core values as a region are. I'm not sure we're going to see eye to eye on this, because you're determined to bury your head in the sand and deny a problem ever existed with regards to loyalty to the region. I think it did, and I think we have gone some way to addressing it, and we shouldn't look back now.

I'm not particularly interested in looking back, either. We had problems with loyalty; those may have cost us some raids and some respect abroad. We also had problems with people who felt entitled to treat their fellow citizens with contempt; that cost us talented, productive citizens. I think the latter hurt us more than the former. You think the opposite. Neither of us is likely to convince the other.

Do we disagree on core values? I don't know. If you think the region should be defined by our struggle against supra-regional defender groups, then yeah, we disagree -- but I don't think that's what you believe.

Directionally, I liked how you described what our objectives as a region should be:

Our ultimate goal should be to be the premier region and community in Nationstates. Anything less and all our people will not be motivated enough to work for our betterment. But this cannot be achieved that by just pretending we are - no matter how many times HEM says it, it won't be true, until it is actually true. We will achieve it by demonstrating and projecting a unique level of quality and activity. One has to balance any external efforts, with our domestic requirements - and get the two to feed off each other.

I guess that doesn't speak to values, and so we could still theoretically have a fundamental disconnect. In practice, though, I don't think so -- I don't think disloyalty is in any way OK, and I'm sure you don't think it's OK for us to conduct our business in a way that makes good people no longer want to be here. Our differences are matters of emphasis -- which does not make them trivial, but does make them something less than fundamental.

Edit: Forgot the crucial word "not."
 
I'm not particularly interested in looking back, either. We had problems with loyalty; those may have cost us some raids and some respect abroad. We also had problems with people who felt entitled to treat their fellow citizens with contempt; that cost us talented, productive citizens. I think the latter hurt us more than the former. You think the opposite. Neither of us is likely to convince the other.

Now hold on, this is not something I'm going to just let you allege with no basis. I know we had problems with loyalty, and the cost is still being counted. But give me an example of people treating fellow citizens with contempt and that costing us talented productive citizens. If you can do this, rather than making vague insinuations, I might be able to give your argument some credence.

Do we disagree on core values? I don't know. If you think the region should be defined by our struggle against supra-regional defender groups, then yeah, we disagree -- but I don't think that's what you believe.

Well, of course not. Frankly I don't know where you'd come up with such an absurd suggestion.

I guess that doesn't speak to values, and so we could still theoretically have a fundamental disconnect. In practice, though, I don't think so -- I don't think disloyalty is in any way OK, and I'm sure you don't think it's OK for us to conduct our business in a way that makes good people no longer want to be here. Our differences are matters of emphasis -- which does not make them trivial, but does make them something less than fundamental.

I suppose the crux of the matter though is that I don't think we have conducted our business in a way that makes good people not want to be here. You're going to have to find some kind of basis for that if you think that it's at all relevant to the issue.
 
Now hold on, this is not something I'm going to just let you allege with no basis. I know we had problems with loyalty, and the cost is still being counted. But give me an example of people treating fellow citizens with contempt and that costing us talented productive citizens. If you can do this, rather than making vague insinuations, I might be able to give your argument some credence.

Off the top of my head, I think we lost Earth, AC, Carracalla, and Jusduckria right about when we had the circular firing squad over TSP. (We lost Henry too, but he was part of the problem.) A few others have been less active since then also. I know how you feel about Earth, but I assume you would say that losing the others was a bad thing for Europeia.

That's just one flare-up of incivility; there have been others. Seriously, I thought it was well-established that this particular aspect of our culture cost us members -- indeed, Falconias is sometimes blamed for this. (Can I blame him for the s--tty weather while I'm at it?)
 
They didn't leave for that reason.

Back to the point: most people join Europeia for some general reasons, qualities of the community. It's not absurd to expect they also stay for some general reasons and community qualities too.
 
They didn't leave for that reason.
You seem very sure about that...

Regardless, it's unproductive to rehash the past -- I only went there because I was challenged. You're absolutely right on the larger point -- the community is what draws people in. It's also what keeps people here.
 
Back
Top