I'm in the UK and I've been told by a fellow American that I'm "patriotic all the time" and that in respect to China I need to "take off my American hat." Fine. But why can't I keep on my "American hat"? I'm an American in a foreign country so why can't I be "patriotic all the time"? If I was Chinese, I wouldn't take off my Chinese hat. He was probably joking but that got me thinking.
Of course we need to be able to all take off our various respective hats and be able to look at the world from different perspectives. Yes we can't be patriotic all the time. But are some nationalities allowed to be more patriotic than others? Is it not cool to be American or something? Is it because American and the West stereotypically represent the oppression and bigotry of the old order and the status quo that Americans (and Europeans) are forced to accept or feign cosmopolitanism? I think it is an unfair modern misconception to always represent the West as perpetual patriarchal aggressors.
I'm proud of my country and I'm not ashamed to say it. My parents were immigrants who chose to come to this country above all others and become citizens because they believed and still believe in the opportunities of America. In spite of all the problems America is experiencing and all the poor decisions America has made I'm not ashamed to say I still believe in America and its primacy.
I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to believe in my country. It's not like I'm saying something outrageous like I don't believe in gay marriage or evolution. I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to bandwagon with everyone else and beat up on the country I was born in. There's nothing wrong with being a patriotic American.
Maybe no one respects America outside of America but I think our country and the world suffers when only Palin and Tea Partiers are allowed to care about and love America. For the most part, I am a liberal but I don't feel like I have to automatically and perpetually spout anti-American critiques. I actually like my country.
I don't understand the need to belittle or downplay being American. Maybe later generations in my family won't feel so excited about being American, but I guess, for now, being American is very important to me. And it's not just some subjective thing. Even if I wanted to, I can't escape being American. My being American is on my passport, my driver's license and can be heard in my voice. Less objectively, being American is a part of my culture, my global perspective and, for better or worse, who I am. I don't think this is a laughable or silly concept but one to be proud of.
RELATED
Despite many attempts to misconstrue its meaning, I don't believe the realists Walt and Mearsheimer's book on the Israel lobby, is not antisemitic in any way. This book was controversial but I don't think it was trying to expose a cabal or conspiracy and I certainly don't think it blaming Jews or Israelis for America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan in order to fit these invasions into realist theory. I think Walt and Mearsheimer are smarter than that. The Israel lobby is just like any other lobby - they all get hit with criticism. Please read the book before stifling needed discussion. We should always be on guard against stereotypes but I think this book has been saddled with more unwarranted accusations and suspicions than it deserves.
I also don't understand the vehemence directed at (American) IR realists and neo-realists and their influence these days, especially in academia and the literature of IR. Does being around during the Cold War make realism automatically old and patriarchal and uncool (like the West/America)? Realism may not explain everything but it's pretty useful in explaining the behavior of states which do constitute the reality of global politics whether one likes it or not.
Power transition theory may seem outmoded to some, but globally and regionally there are always status quo powers and revisionist states in hegemonic battle. There are multiple balances of power between states of varying power, whether they be great powers, middle powers or superpowers. Economically and militarily some states seem to get weaker as others seem to get stronger so obviously power is constantly in flux as it transitions between states.
Unless one questions the validity, significance or existence of states and power, then realism is one of the better ways to understand IR, with liberalism being a close runner-up since it seems to better explain the behavior of today's market states while realism seems to be still viewing states as nation states. Power, abstract as it is, is a distinct reality in our world. States either want hegemony or they have it. Simple. I don't think that's such a horrible way of viewing the world. It's, well, realistic. Perhaps realists are characterized unfairly? Just throwing it out there.
Maybe the revolt against realism in the academia of IR is an extension of a greater battle against the status quo, the West or rather the U.S. being a status quo power and its way of thinking and what it stands for - representing the status quo. Yes, the status quo is not always good. The oppression of the past shouldn't be condoned. Change and adaptation to new norms is always welcome. But if status quo powers are willing to right their wrongs, what is wrong with keeping the status quo of such powers in IR and otherwise? (For the record I don't think IR is Anglo-American; it's just IR. You don't have American or Chinese IR theorists, you just have IR theorists. No one would divide physics or psychology or any other discipline up by nationality so I don't see why IR should be any different.)
Just because a state or an idea is the status quo doesn't mean it always has to carry a negative connotation. Oppression need not be synonymous with the status quo and not all revisionist powers or revolutionary ideas are good news. The separate backlashes against America, the West and realism seem to be all rooted in this misunderstanding.
- Ryu
Posts
