~by David
Aiken~
In a recent ethics class one of the
student presentations was about Injustice and the State, and the discussion,
naturally, slid over into torture and state-sponsored terrorism. As usual then,
at least for those who know me even the slightest bit, at the end of the presentation
Teacher held forth on the unacceptable-ness (an Aikenesque neologism) of State
involvement in committing illegal acts in general, and especially on the
subject of America’s participation in such activities… complete with the usual,
“We (i.e., Americans) should be better than that!” It was the whole enchilada. So,
it caught me a bit short when, on the way out at the end of class, a student
asked me if I were still proud to be an American.
I
admit—the question took me by surprise. At first, looking at her a bit askance
and askew as is my teacherly wont when unsure about whether I am being mocked, I
could not decide whether or not she was being facetious with her question, as I
had been cranking rather unambiguously on the U.S. critique-machine; so, frankly,
irony could certainly have been in her mind. Even now, years later, I am undecided
about whether the student intended to serve up a cold portion of irony with
this question.
At
any rate, what she got from me in response was still my philosophical stock in
trade answer – I am only proud of things when I actually have personal merit or
involvement in them in some capacity. As an erstwhile disciple of that old
Stoic Slave-Master, Epictetus, there can be no other possible answer to such a question
than his:
6. “You should never accept praise, from anyone, for any
accomplishment or quality that belongs to another. (2) If a fine-looking horse should ever exclaim, exalting himself, “I am
fine-looking,” that would be acceptable. (3) But you, each time you say, exalting yourself, “This fine-looking horse
is mine” –remain aware that you are praising yourself for a quality that
belongs rightfully to the horse. (5) So, your “accomplishment or quality” here is only a “borrowing” from “the horse’s” outward appearance. What then
is actually yours? In a world cobbled together of outward surfaces &
façades, what this means is that you should hold fast to your own real or
natural qualities—in which case you are rightfully praised. (7) For then you shall accept praise for some quality
that belongs rightfully to you.” (Aiken translation)
Or again:
44. … These reasonings are connected: "I am richer than
you, therefore my property is greater than yours;" "I
am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than
yours." But you, after all, are neither property nor style
(as rendered by Ms. Carter on the MIT site).”
So, the simple and philosophically correct
answer to my student’s question must necessarily be that no, I am not in the
least proud of some ‘condition’ over which I had no control. My birthright is
neither mine nor my possession in any normal or meaningful sense
of that word, so it would be philosophically inappropriate for me to make it a
subject of my pride. It is this same Stoic common-sensical critique that also
makes social constructs, such as {Patriotism + Pride = American value}, so patently
and philosophically meaningless.
Being
proud of where I am born is akin to being proud of having naturally curly hair
or good skin… these are not personal accomplishments that demonstrate
any particular character on my part. So one who is proud or not proud, or who
has any strong opinion whatsoever about where he is born, is exactly like the little mole who wanted to
know who did a poo on his head, and who then proceeded to walk around beshat (beshatten?
beshitten? beshyted?) for the entire duration of his investigation into poo-ish
causal origins. What is frankly important here is not whose business it is, but what I personally do(o) (apologies for
the 3rd grade puns) about it now that I am bespattered. So, let us
choose to be different from our little mole-lish friend, and, by asking the
correct questions up front, try to draw out the best possible conclusions. Chances
are much better that we will act well if we begin our quest by thinking well.
§ Answer by List. Perhaps there are other philosophical considerations relevant to
my student’s question. How might it be meaningful to make the connection
between personal and individual pride and the fact of being the fruit of American loins? This reflection is not an
endorsement of any American party or of any political candidates or platforms,
but rather of a philosophical value – Justice.
·
In my generation it
was trendy not to be proud of America’s involvement in Vietnam—for all the
various and sundry reasons. It therefore stood to reason that I should not be proud
to be an American in that season of America’s history, because it seemed to me that
I was implicated and therefore complicit in America’s Asian involvement.
However, I was distinctly proud of the
fact that individual Americans, including my younger self, would take to the
streets to protest that war– I was proud to engage my thought, and my time, and
my energy in the real-life working out of a people’s democracy.
·
Likewise, I was not
proud to be an American in the era of U.S. segregationist policies. But I was
distinctly proud of the moment in America’s history when she was able to get
beyond the issue of color in order to see a man, and then to elect him
president—because I actively supported that transition into social justice in
my political choices, and because, although racism is far from dead in America, I personally
continue to refuse to allow ‘racist’ opinions, which is to say: category
thinking of any and every the ilk (e.g., gender, color, nationality, etc.,), to
influence my thinking and my actions.
·
According to Human Rights
Watch, America seems to have an active policy of putting its convicted youth in
solitary confinement. So, while I have to admit that I have known some pretty rowdy and
even out-of-control young people in my time, this particular American philosophe is not proud that he hails
from a modern western 1st-world country that locks up its troubled
young people in solitary confinement. If someone in prison needs medical or
psychological attention, it would seem reasonable that we Americans could and
should find a more appropriate manner that addresses these problems, which
would include a whole range of professional approaches and solutions.
This America does not make me proud.
But the fact that I can actively and loudly join my critical voice to that of
the people at Human Rights Watch makes me proud, because it gives me the
opportunity to play a role, no matter how small, in creating an America that is
good and just.
·
Also according to the HRW, America
got away with torture during the Bush Administration (2001-2008). This was a
violation of both US and international law, not to speak of the U.S. Army Field
Manual (since 1956 until its revision in 2006 under the Bush Administration). But
to address all the arguments relevant to torture and our need for intelligence
in one fell swoop—at the end of the day it does not even matter whether or not
torture “works” in getting that all-too-important and all-too-urgent intelligence
we keep hearing about. Torture is ILLEGAL, a violation of American
constitutional law, and therefore we Americans should not be practicing it. I
am not proud of America’s renegade conduct in this matter.
By the way, the science is in – torture should be out, unless we are just absolutely dead-set on creating the next
generation of terrorists by means of our own state-sanctioned terrorist
conduct. On the other hand, if political America should wish to practice
torture, then it should follow the legal and political channels of American
democracy to have torture voted into law and ourselves voted to be taken out of
the U.N. This is how We the People should work in a democracy.
However, because this step toward
the legalization of torture has not yet occurred in the U.S., I was therefore
delighted that the former President (B. Obama) decided that America and her
president should act within the confines of the U.S. Constitution, as well as
in agreement with the treaties the U.S. has signed with the United Nations. And
I was proud that I cast my vote on the side of a man whose character is such
that he values Justice, and who still had a vision of America that reflects the
America I have known in my life. So nix to Gitmo and torture—almost…
·
There are approximately 241
countries and territories in the world; and to whatever degree countries expect
their citizens to act within the confines of Law, we all, each and every one of
us, individually as well as nationally, at least pay lip-service to the idea of
Justice in the world. I am proud to actively be of this number. Also, I know of
no one, personally, who has ever convincingly made the case that we humans
should not strive for Justice.
Of the world’s 241 countries, 193
are member states of the United Nations. I am proud to say that America is of
this (latter) number, and that I have also played my part by teaching students
the importance of justice and civilized conduct in our relationships, both
close to home and beyond our shores.
·
However, in publishing its 2012
Facts and Figures, Amnesty International supplies a corrective to my rose-colored understanding
of America’s engagement for Justice in the international community, because the country of my
birth is plainly playing a non-supportive role in the theater of global justice.
I am not proud of this side of America. The International Criminal Court (ICC)
was founded in 2002 with the following transnational statement of value: “The
investigation and prosecution of international crimes—including genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes—is a fundamental component of
transitional justice.”
·
To date, there are 122
member states which have signed on to the International Criminal Court. Simple
math tells me that 71 countries and territories, which are member states of the
UN, have not signed on to or are non-signatory states of the ICC, with another
48 non-party, non-signatory states, which are just existing in some moral
no-man’s-land at the edge of the world. Unfortunately, the United States is
non-party and non-signatory of the ICC.
Per the wiki-source, “During the Obama administration, US
opposition to the ICC evolved to "positive engagement," although no
effort was made to ratify the Rome Statute. The subsequent Trump administration
is considerably more hostile to the Court, imposing visa bans on ICC staff in
response to concerns that an investigation may be opened up against American
nationals in connection to alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.”
It would therefore seem that on the question of International
Justice the U.S. has opted to play keep-up-with-the-Joneses with the likes of North
Korea and Somalia,
two bad boys of the world’s most repressive societies.
Sheesch…
Even Uganda, of
Idi Amin fame, and Nigeria,
perhaps the most historically corrupt country on the planet, are signatories to
the ICC.
I am not proud of this American fact.
According to wiki-sources
on this question, the Clinton Administration signed the original Rome Statute
in 2000, but failed to submit the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification;
and the Bush Administration, again according to the above source, made quite
clear that the U.S. would not join the ICC. For these two facts I am not proud;
because this does not reflect the justice I value for America and for the world
community of nations.
However, I am proud that under the
Obama administration America sought to reestablish a working relationship with
the ICC. My pride about this comes from the fact that I have not only taught my
students about Justice, but that I also worked together with other people who value
justice to choose as the representative for America a president (B.O.)
interested in questions of world Justice.
It is an evidence of very practical
philosophy that when we support just men and just women, we create Justice in
our world.
While we all may hope that God might bless
these United States of America, per the Greenwood song, you
and I, My Fellow Americans, must still not fail in our day job—which, in Dr.
King’s words, is to create an America where, every day in our own personal
actions, “justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
(Reprised from an original essay posted
31-10-2012)
