Proud to be an American?

~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 3^rd 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 1^st-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)