An interesting question came up in some one to one discussions yesterday in Bangor. Namely when does patriotism become prejudice? I prefer the word identity anyway as patriotism has too many jingoistic associations. People need to be something (identity) and they are the outcome of multiple emergent processes in which their history is an intimate part, but is it right to assert that identity?
Many of the my generation in Wales will have heard stories of their Grandparents being beaten for speaking Welsh in school as a part of systematic attempt to eliminate language. An experience shared in various forms by Indigenous people world wide. I have friends in South Africa whose Grandparents were sent to concentration camps. Given that a characteristic of Empire (imperial in the case of Rome and England, commercial in the case of the US) is to impose its culture on others, how far is it right to reassert that identity, when to do so inevitably involves some challenges to the previously or current dominant power? If you are English (to take the example that came up yesterday) then you are not personally responsible for such actions, but your position in the flow of time is at least in part in consequence of them. Most people I know give as good as they get, with humour but others seem very precious about it.
My own view is that assertion of identity, with humour is valid but others think that this is a new form of racism. It's an interesting question and somewhat ironic that the tables have to a degree been turned. Its not an easy issue though, like all questions of line drawing. I am reminded of an old joke however.
Q: Why is it that Catholics and Jews are the only people who make jokes about their religion?
A: They know they are right so it doesn't worry them
Humour I think is key, its a sign of self confidence, a willingness not to ignore the past, but to embrace it and move forwards
Comments (4)
I think it is no more complicated than to say you can assert your identity as much as you want, as long as it does not compromise the rights of others (rights being defined in terms of human rights ala UN) - e.g. you cannot say that you are rightfully asserting your identify by raping women who wear short skirts.
The above rule can apply to your comments on humour.
Posted by Jonathan Carter | June 25, 2008 1:50 PM
Posted on June 25, 2008 13:50
I think that we are still coming to terms with the idea of having multiple identities.
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/humanitys_ident.php
includes the comment
“The twentieth century was marked by the politics of ideology. The twenty-first century will be marked by the politics of identity.” - Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/502/
Bureaucracy will continue to be brutal and stupid about this. Actions with unintended consequences like the translation of the bible into Welsh will doubtless continue (the idea was so that people could use it to help them learn English. It was used to worship in Welsh).
Posted by Brian Sherwood Jones | June 26, 2008 8:22 AM
Posted on June 26, 2008 08:22
Let's say there is one group that is dominant (England in the 19th century or US in the 2nd half of the 20th as examples). Within that group are some individuals who value diversity and others who desire to impose their values and culture on or over others. If the society has no checks and balances to prevent either group from dominating, which group is more likely to run that society?
Even if there are checks and balances, would the domination group be able to overcome them and dominate anyhow?
If it turned out that the domination group trumps the diversity group, perhaps it is inevitable that one group ends up imposing their social structure on others, until a different group takes power and does the same with theirs.
I'd love to see some mathematically derived simulation show what would happen.
Posted by Mitch Weisburgh | June 26, 2008 3:50 PM
Posted on June 26, 2008 15:50
when does patriotism become prejudice?
i've argued in the past that patriotism, like other forms of identity, doesn't become prejudice, it adopts it as a form of expression.
like brian says, we have multiple overlapping identities that each crave different types of meaningfulness. patriotism is a "light-heart" identity that requires symbols and a shallow group-feeling.
contrast it to family, which also needs group-feeling, but is satisfied with closeness and blood-relatedness.
patriotism (and of course, nationalism) often escalates to prejudice and bigotry because the symbolism it needs for satisfaction are often zero-sum and exclusive. this in turn engenders an emphasis on difference, which in turn feeds through into socio-political discourses, which in turn... you can see where i'm going with this.
patriotism doesn't become prejudice, it is sometimes satisfied by it.
Posted by che tibby | June 29, 2008 9:49 PM
Posted on June 29, 2008 21:49