Flag-burning, symbolism and the case against Patriotism
Flag-burning heated LSU
It's been on the news for several days now: a LSU graduate and part-time instructor tried to burn the USA flag, only to be stopped by a concerning and patriotic crowd, or angry and hostile mob, depends on which side you're on. His reason is, as he put it, to protest against the arrest of another student in a prior flag-burning incident.
I need to give you a little background on this story first: there is a student called Isaac Eslava who stole a car, cut down the flag at the LSU War Memorial and burned it down to the ground and sprayed paint on public property, causing around $400 in damage in the process. To top that off, he allegedly did all of that to protest against the killing of Osama bin Laden, too. Needless to say, many people felt satisfied and deserving that Isaac was arrested on May 5.
Not Benjamin Haas, a graduate and part-time instructor at LSU, apparently.
So Ben Haas called it enough and decided to stand up and exercise his freedom of speech, granted by the Constitution of the United States and several Federal Court cases in the last century.
Then the crowd joined the fray, and things quickly turned ugly.
Which side is at fault?
Granted, Haas' cause was not very convincing to begin with. He picked the wrong place and wrong time: Louisiana is not known to be very liberal, and so-called "patriotism" was at an all-time high after the death of Osama bin Laden. Nonetheless, his action was legal. The Federal Court has ruled, on several occasion, that it is unconstitutional to prohibit the desecration of the flag. So were the protestors: the act of verbally protest against Ben Haas is also an exercise of free speech, and it is, as a matter of fact, legal. Legally speaking, neither side is at fault in this confrontation.
However, that does not make both side equally right.
I think I should start with Ben Haas: by protesting against the arrest of Isaac Eslava, he, deliberately or not, has unmistakably endorsed the act of stealing, arson and vandalism. He has also, in public opinion, implicitly showed some supports for Isaac's cause, which very likely was the death of bin Laden. While rejoicing at the death of a fellow man is not exactly right, that does not grant you the right to vandalize public properties as you please. Why did Ben Haas want to protect someone like Isaac?
Nonetheless, the case against Haas is just that he has picked the wrong cause, and decided to publicly announce said cause. The case against the angry mob is much more serious: they have deterred the exercise of freedom of speech, one of the very foundations their country was built on.
The pitfall of Symbolism
Don't be mistaken: there could be potential bloodshed at the site, had the police officers not there. There were flying bottles and water balloons, there were verbal abuses and hate speeches, and there was one vs. hundreds. Police officers had to move him away for his safety, and that must say something: the level of hostility and intimidation was only increasing. The way it seemed, it wouldn't be long before empty bottles and water balloons become stones and fireworks.
But why oppose to burning the flag in the first place?
Patriotism is a very potent answer here: the crowd can be heard chanting "USA" in the background said something about it. Maybe they were thinking that the burning of the flag is an insult to their country which they cherish so much, and that they should do something about it lest their country image would be damaged in some way or another. To them, the flag symbolizes their country, their pride and their patriotism.
However, there are several problems here. First of all, the symbol itself does not necessarily symbolizes anything. It may sound counter-intuitive, but it is true. The six-pointed star is just a symbol of perfect balance to me, but to those of Jewish origin, it has a sacred meaning. The cross was a symbol of death and punishment in the Roman era, but today it is the symbol of Christianity, and to the Christian, it also means holiness and salvation. The fact is that, the symbol only bears the meaning that people superimpose it on. So to many people, the US Flag may mean patriotism and love for their country; but to others, it may also mean the government, the established system or the Corporation of America. Likewise, the burning of the flag may mean to some insults and hatred for their country; but it may also mean discontent for the government or protest against the tyranny of men. Or even better, like a Youtube comment pointed out, it may symbolize the celebration of free speech: only in a free country can one burn one country's flag and not be lynching by an angry mob. Say, what do you call a country that sentence its citizen to death for burning its flag? Evil, no less. Especially if said country was China or North Korea or Libya. But what if your own country ban the burning of your flag, which then may be equal to heavy fines and years of prison? Of course it is justified, for that is your country's flag after all!
Did you see the heart of the problem here? Looking at one symbol, different people will decipher it in different ways. It is wrongful for one to exert his own view, his own decipher of a symbol onto another man; it is much more wrongful for said man to violate the other man's freedom, which he has taken for granted himself. We could say he has fallen into the pitfall of symbolism.
The case against Patriotism
But there lies an even more dangerous pitfall in this story: patriotism. In the course of human history, wars are a common sight; and wars are often, if not always, waged to "solve" conflicts in the benefits of two or more groups of people. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the people involved to think that they should, and must, be proud of the group they are in; so that they could willingly sacrifice their efforts, properties and even their lives for the "greater good". Thus born Patriotism.
What makes patriotism so potent is that it is so arbitrary it could be anything. For example, a Christian in the USA may say that "USA is a Christian nation" and thus be proud of it; although neither statistics nor the Founding Father agree with him. A Manchurian born after the conquest of Manchuria by China would be proud of China; although the Manchurian were the ones who once ruled over China not so long ago. Conversely, a South Korean, if asked, would be very proud of his country (the peaceful one) but not North Korean; although the two are essentially the same country. Do you, after carefully examining the three cases above, find patriotism utterly absurd? Because it really is. Not everyone in the US will agree about what it means to say "United States of America", and they are fighting constantly about that. The American in Texas do not find themselves among the "hillbillies", and the American in New York do not identify themselves with the "rednecks". The neo-Nazi Germans do not think that Arianism is wrong nor Hitler was a villain, and the rest of Germany do not agree well with them. The Mormon Church do not think that anyone except the Mormons will go to heaven, and there are well over a thousand sects of Christianity disagree with them. The anarcho-communists insist that their philosophy is the only true path to utopia, and the anarcho-capitalists beg on the exact opposite. Where do you find yourselves caught between endless clashes of ideas? How do you identify yourself?
As you can see, those conflicts could not, and will never, be solved. Patriotism will never be well defined, let alone agreed on, by people constantly insisting that they are right (and others are wrong). Patriotism was born with the one and sole purpose: to control the bewildering masses; and I must admit it had done a very fine job.
A closing word
As hard as I fight against patriotism, I cannot imagine myself without a nationality or a country. If ever asked: "Are you proud of your country?", I would definitely answer "Yes". Still, they have not ask what my definition of a "country" is. For the time being, my country would be the group of people that I identify myself with, the group of people that my family identify themselves with. It is a matter of inheritance, you know. However, I will not abuse that pride for any political reason whatsoever, I will not use patriotism to control the people or keep them in line. And I wish that one day, "patriotism" would simply means "being proud to be part of humanity".
It's been on the news for several days now: a LSU graduate and part-time instructor tried to burn the USA flag, only to be stopped by a concerning and patriotic crowd, or angry and hostile mob, depends on which side you're on. His reason is, as he put it, to protest against the arrest of another student in a prior flag-burning incident.
Video: the confrontation at LSU, May 11 2011 -- and a pretty lopsided one at that too.
I need to give you a little background on this story first: there is a student called Isaac Eslava who stole a car, cut down the flag at the LSU War Memorial and burned it down to the ground and sprayed paint on public property, causing around $400 in damage in the process. To top that off, he allegedly did all of that to protest against the killing of Osama bin Laden, too. Needless to say, many people felt satisfied and deserving that Isaac was arrested on May 5.
Not Benjamin Haas, a graduate and part-time instructor at LSU, apparently.
News on the prior flag burning incident: http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/crimetracker/suspect-caught-in-lsu-flag-burning
So Ben Haas called it enough and decided to stand up and exercise his freedom of speech, granted by the Constitution of the United States and several Federal Court cases in the last century.
Then the crowd joined the fray, and things quickly turned ugly.
More video: now with more flying bottles and water balloons!
Which side is at fault?
Granted, Haas' cause was not very convincing to begin with. He picked the wrong place and wrong time: Louisiana is not known to be very liberal, and so-called "patriotism" was at an all-time high after the death of Osama bin Laden. Nonetheless, his action was legal. The Federal Court has ruled, on several occasion, that it is unconstitutional to prohibit the desecration of the flag. So were the protestors: the act of verbally protest against Ben Haas is also an exercise of free speech, and it is, as a matter of fact, legal. Legally speaking, neither side is at fault in this confrontation.
However, that does not make both side equally right.
I think I should start with Ben Haas: by protesting against the arrest of Isaac Eslava, he, deliberately or not, has unmistakably endorsed the act of stealing, arson and vandalism. He has also, in public opinion, implicitly showed some supports for Isaac's cause, which very likely was the death of bin Laden. While rejoicing at the death of a fellow man is not exactly right, that does not grant you the right to vandalize public properties as you please. Why did Ben Haas want to protect someone like Isaac?
Nonetheless, the case against Haas is just that he has picked the wrong cause, and decided to publicly announce said cause. The case against the angry mob is much more serious: they have deterred the exercise of freedom of speech, one of the very foundations their country was built on.
The pitfall of Symbolism
Don't be mistaken: there could be potential bloodshed at the site, had the police officers not there. There were flying bottles and water balloons, there were verbal abuses and hate speeches, and there was one vs. hundreds. Police officers had to move him away for his safety, and that must say something: the level of hostility and intimidation was only increasing. The way it seemed, it wouldn't be long before empty bottles and water balloons become stones and fireworks.
But why oppose to burning the flag in the first place?
Patriotism is a very potent answer here: the crowd can be heard chanting "USA" in the background said something about it. Maybe they were thinking that the burning of the flag is an insult to their country which they cherish so much, and that they should do something about it lest their country image would be damaged in some way or another. To them, the flag symbolizes their country, their pride and their patriotism.
However, there are several problems here. First of all, the symbol itself does not necessarily symbolizes anything. It may sound counter-intuitive, but it is true. The six-pointed star is just a symbol of perfect balance to me, but to those of Jewish origin, it has a sacred meaning. The cross was a symbol of death and punishment in the Roman era, but today it is the symbol of Christianity, and to the Christian, it also means holiness and salvation. The fact is that, the symbol only bears the meaning that people superimpose it on. So to many people, the US Flag may mean patriotism and love for their country; but to others, it may also mean the government, the established system or the Corporation of America. Likewise, the burning of the flag may mean to some insults and hatred for their country; but it may also mean discontent for the government or protest against the tyranny of men. Or even better, like a Youtube comment pointed out, it may symbolize the celebration of free speech: only in a free country can one burn one country's flag and not be lynching by an angry mob. Say, what do you call a country that sentence its citizen to death for burning its flag? Evil, no less. Especially if said country was China or North Korea or Libya. But what if your own country ban the burning of your flag, which then may be equal to heavy fines and years of prison? Of course it is justified, for that is your country's flag after all!
Did you see the heart of the problem here? Looking at one symbol, different people will decipher it in different ways. It is wrongful for one to exert his own view, his own decipher of a symbol onto another man; it is much more wrongful for said man to violate the other man's freedom, which he has taken for granted himself. We could say he has fallen into the pitfall of symbolism.
The case against Patriotism
But there lies an even more dangerous pitfall in this story: patriotism. In the course of human history, wars are a common sight; and wars are often, if not always, waged to "solve" conflicts in the benefits of two or more groups of people. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the people involved to think that they should, and must, be proud of the group they are in; so that they could willingly sacrifice their efforts, properties and even their lives for the "greater good". Thus born Patriotism.
What makes patriotism so potent is that it is so arbitrary it could be anything. For example, a Christian in the USA may say that "USA is a Christian nation" and thus be proud of it; although neither statistics nor the Founding Father agree with him. A Manchurian born after the conquest of Manchuria by China would be proud of China; although the Manchurian were the ones who once ruled over China not so long ago. Conversely, a South Korean, if asked, would be very proud of his country (the peaceful one) but not North Korean; although the two are essentially the same country. Do you, after carefully examining the three cases above, find patriotism utterly absurd? Because it really is. Not everyone in the US will agree about what it means to say "United States of America", and they are fighting constantly about that. The American in Texas do not find themselves among the "hillbillies", and the American in New York do not identify themselves with the "rednecks". The neo-Nazi Germans do not think that Arianism is wrong nor Hitler was a villain, and the rest of Germany do not agree well with them. The Mormon Church do not think that anyone except the Mormons will go to heaven, and there are well over a thousand sects of Christianity disagree with them. The anarcho-communists insist that their philosophy is the only true path to utopia, and the anarcho-capitalists beg on the exact opposite. Where do you find yourselves caught between endless clashes of ideas? How do you identify yourself?
As you can see, those conflicts could not, and will never, be solved. Patriotism will never be well defined, let alone agreed on, by people constantly insisting that they are right (and others are wrong). Patriotism was born with the one and sole purpose: to control the bewildering masses; and I must admit it had done a very fine job.
A closing word
As hard as I fight against patriotism, I cannot imagine myself without a nationality or a country. If ever asked: "Are you proud of your country?", I would definitely answer "Yes". Still, they have not ask what my definition of a "country" is. For the time being, my country would be the group of people that I identify myself with, the group of people that my family identify themselves with. It is a matter of inheritance, you know. However, I will not abuse that pride for any political reason whatsoever, I will not use patriotism to control the people or keep them in line. And I wish that one day, "patriotism" would simply means "being proud to be part of humanity".
Comments
Post a Comment