Uncritical Patriotism

I live in Boston. The bombings last week were approximately 2.5 miles from my house. I experienced the shock, fear, and uncertainty that has rocked this city over the past several days. However, the amount of unchecked patriotic rhetoric that has been carelessly thrown around since the terrible bombings have left me feeling frustrated, angry, and alienated.

I am so grateful for the outpouring of support in this city and throughout the nation for the victims of Monday's attack and for all of us whose sense of security has been shaken. I am grateful for the emergency responders and even for sports teams who have acted in solidarity to show their support during this difficult time. However, I do NOT feel comfortable with the rise in feel-good patriotic rhetoric circulating.

When I tried to express my concern and discomfort at work today (where news coverage touting American ideals contrasted with traumatic scenes and descriptions of the attack played constantly) a colleague of mine argued that Patriotism isn't problematic because it makes people feel good and "American values are objectively positive." She disagreed with my discomfort (how do you disagree with someone's discomfort?!?) and I felt more frustrated and alone than ever. By not buying into the patriotic rhetoric uncritically, this sweet but naive young woman deemed me, though I am sure unintentionally, a "bad" American.

This morning at the "interfaith" service in Boston President Obama said: “I’m here today on behalf of the American people with a simple message: Every one of us has been touched by this attack on your beloved city. Every one of us stands with you" (Boston Globe). Who, pray tell  are these American people of whom you speak? Can we pause for a moment and acknowledge the fact that the terrorists very well could have been American? Who do you really mean when you say the "American people?" (note: We now know that the key suspects in this case are of Russian origin, but we have plenty of examples of home-grown terrorists. Think Newtown or Oklahoma City.)

While it's incredibly important to support each other during trying times, why can't we support each other as human beings rather than as nationalists? Patriotic propaganda may feel good and help some people to feel supported and a part of something larger than themselves. I get it. But can we please think about the dangerous repercussions of this rhetoric? If Americans are brave and strong and righteous, does that mean that anyone who is not American fails to possess these traits? What about immigrants? What about people of color? Are we "real" Americans?

Rhetoric that sets up an "us vs. them" dichotomy oversimplifies the issues at hand and lead to dangerous situations, both in discourse and at times physical violence. As as person of color and a first generation American, this patriotic rhetoric frightens me. It perpetuates notions of American supremacy and encourages fear and mistrust of the "Other."

Sadly, the effects are already visible. To my young colleague, and so many others who embrace nationalist discourse without stopping to think about the implications, I find myself struggling to explain the basics of nationalism in this emotionally charged time. I began attempting to explain, but then realized that she probably has never thought about what the nation IS. Not everyone has had the luxury of sitting down with peers to discuss the work of Benedict Anderson and to ponder the social construction of nations. But an understanding of postcolonial theory shouldn't be necessary to understand that inclusion in the nation is only possible at the expense of excluding "Others," right?

Maybe it is asking too much of people to think critical during such an emotionally charged time, though I think that during emotionally charged times it is especially important not to get swept up in patriotic messages at the expense of others. Because while some people feel comforted and included, the rest of us are feeling more alienated than ever.

Born to be Wild -- Colonial Legacies

So, I have been sitting on this one for quite some time due to my crazy schedule over the last few months, but I saw a movie at the Boston Aquarium recently that was adorable and yet terribly unsettling.

 The movie was called "Born to be Wild 3D" and it documents two programs that help orphaned wildlife in terribly "exotic" and romanticized corners of the world (note: this is drenched in sarcasm and distaste). While the baby animals were unbearably cute, my main critique lies with the choice of human subjects in the film. Though the documentary follows animals in Kenya and Borneo, filmmakers chose to follow elderly white women, blatant remnants of colonial legacies in these countries, as the protagonists. The white women give many interviews describing their love for the baby animals and how amazing it is that they are able to "rescue" them. All the while, black Kenyan men are seen in the background actually taking care of the baby elephants!!! These Kenyan men remain nameless and voiceless throughout the film. No one bothered to ask them about their roles in caring for the animals. While the colonial women are imparting their knowledge of these wild animals, the Bornean and Kenyan caretakers are seen playing with the animals in the background in a way that constructs them as "wild" and "animal-like."

 In this day and age, why do cute films aimed at child audiences continue to reify colonial legacies without questioning the role of race in representation? Why did it seem as though I was the only person in the theatre who left feeling mildly disturbed by the portrayal of people of color as mere props in the background of these white women's heroic stories? Normalizing this type of representation of race and colonialism in entertainment for our children makes it that much harder to deconstruct these problematic (and powerful) notions in the future. While children leave thinking about the cute monkeys and elephants, on a subconscious level there is much deeper schema-building at work. Without even realizing it, by leaving these representations uninterrogated, we encourage our children to accept these representations as truth and thereby reaffirm pervasive and institutionalized racist, Western-centric thinking.

Gun Violence: Blaming the Mentally Ill

“‘People who have mental health issues should not have guns,’ Mr. Cuomo told reporters. ‘They could hurt themselves, they could hurt other people.’” (NYTimes.com 1/15/2013)

True. Anyone with a gun could hurt themselves or other people. While I am hardily in favor of restricting the sale of lethal weapons, I am concerned that statements such as the one above works to further stigmatize an already marginalized population. Increasing stigma around mental health issues will only make people LESS likely to seek support for themselves and their children.

 Also, how are we defining "mental health issues?" I suffered from severe depression as an adolescent, though I am currently a happy thriving adult. Do I still count as someone with "mental health issues?" Do you only count as having a "mental health issue" if you seek treatment and your "issue" is documented by a licensed mental health professional? What about the millions of Americans who suffer with mental health problems but remain undiagnosed? Is it okay to sell them a gun so long as they don't mention their troubles to a doctor or therapist?

 Long story short, I completely agree that this epidemic of mass shootings indicates more than a just a gun problem; these tragedies point to a failure of the mental health system in this country. I firmly believe that any comprehensive approach to preventing more of these tragedies requires gun legislation reform as well as a close examination of the state of mental health in this country. However, I do NOT think that legislation that further stigmatizes mental illness is the way to go. Helping people who struggle with mental illness to receive the treatment and support needed to live fulfilling lives is not exactly the same as pegging the mentally ill as criminals.

 Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing that people who report that they plan to harm themselves or others should be in possession of assault weapons. I am arguing that only addressing one side of the issue (i.e. punishing those who struggle with mental illness rather than promoting mental health and wellness) will not lead to the kind of change that I think the legislators hope to achieve. And in the meanwhile, mental health becomes even more taboo and stigmatized in the process.