Notes to a Young Progressive

Hola mi Gente,

Did I mention of my commitment to post at least one blog post every day for a year? LOL I will be away upstate (Elmira Correctional Facility) on a prison monitoring visit for the rest of the week. So this commitment should get interesting… 

* * *

Nationalism vs. Patriotism

I call him a patriot who rebukes his country for its sins and does not excuse them.

-- Frederick Douglass

Patriotism is proud of a country’s virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country’s virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, ‘the greatest,’ but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.

-- Sidney J. Harris

Many years ago, George Orwell wrote a prescient essay on the differences between nationalism and patriotism Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism, has as much relevance today as it did when it was written right before the lead up to WWII as nationalistic fervor fed the flames of Nazism and fascism.

Too many people-- in every country -- confuse nationalism for patriotism. When I listen to the nationalistic fervor stoked by the GOP clown car, especially Trumpf and Palin, for example, it is concerning because theirs is an appeal to fear to a white demographic feeling betrayed -- a population looking for any excuse to explode. The Trumpf/ GOP’s campaign strategy is to create “the other” as different and unpatriotic. It’s been a one-note effort mostly because U.S. conservatives apparently do not know any other strategy. 

Another reason conservatives use this tactic because it works: tar and feather a candidate by coming up with the scary face of a black killer. At one time that face was the face of Willie Horton. Today, it is any black kid with a hood. Dismiss people who dare question the wisdom of our current foreign policies as “unpatriotic.” Paint the opposition as effeminate and ineffectual and deride them for having the courage to speak out against wars that kill tens of thousands of innocent women and children. Tar and feather Obama as an uppity nigger (the nerve of a Harvard education!) who “pals around with “terrists.” While the preferred outcome is the same, the tactics are numerous.

And it continues to work. It is working partly because the failures of decades of lunatic conservative economic policies have created global financial meltdowns and eroded the middle class. It is working mostly because for the first time in a long time, a candidate with admittedly major flaws, has had the audacity to call rule by corporate proxy to be the moral question of the era.

Like Orwell, I view nationalism as patriotism’s ugly stepsister. Orwell defined patriotism as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people.” I have no argument with this definition.

According to Orwell, nationalism is the tendency of identifying oneself with a single nation or an idea, and “placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.” In other words, nationalism doesn’t have to be based on an allegiance to a particular nation. This same fanaticism can be applied to any “ism”: neo-conservatism and fundamentalism of any kind (religious or otherwise), for example. Whether it’s based on a country or an “ism,” nationalism always contains that dangerous combination of blind fanaticism and a lack of concern for reality.

In nationalism, thoughts “always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations… Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception.” Moreover, that self-deception leads to catastrophic miscalculations based on delusions rather than facts. Orwell stated:

“Political and military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.”

In other words, whatever happened to the widely held neocon assertion that the Iraqis would’ve greeted us as liberators and showered us with rose petals?

But to really appreciate Orwell and understand how he had our current foreign policy down pat you only need to read this:

“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

It was Georges Santayana who said “… those who refuse to remember the past, are condemned to relive it.” 

Any of this sounds familiar?

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization… 

Monday Mythbusters [Anger and Venting]

Hola mi Gente,

I know it's a little late but I just wanted to reiterate my feelings as I posted them on social media regarding professional come mierda, Rafael “Ted” Cruz’ remarks regarding New York “values” and his subsequent non apology:

Cruz' slimy slur (and subsequent non-apology) against multi-ethnic, multiracial NYC (and most "blue states") is a not-so-subtle racist dog whistle. And that's why it matters. There are many who can't or won't see the racism in this, but fuck them. Period.

Today's racism is one that is preoccupied with matters of “moral character,” informed by the virtues associated with the myth of US rugged individualism. In other words, conservative talking points about perceived individual failure are racially coded expressions of negative stereotypes of people of color (mostly Blacks and Latin@s). And this is what Cruz is appealing to when he takes digs at New York.

* * *

Practicing to Hate

Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person to the right degree at the right time for the right purpose and in the right way, that is not easy.

 -- Aristotle

The belief that venting anger (“letting off steam”), is one of the most destructive. The idea that venting is necessary and helpful has become a cultural assumption. I believe it stems from a misconception from theories expressed by Freud and his followers.

The way the myth goes is that frustration can build up over time and that it must be released one way or another. Bottled up, unexpressed anger supposedly festers in your mind and body, creating both physical and emotional disease and poisoning relationships at work, play, and romance (Bry, 1976). The basic cure, then, is to express your anger, “letting it all out,” in order to cleanse and purify your mind and body (Janov, 1970). This so-called cleansing is sometimes called catharsis, which literally means “purging.” The assumption being that clearing the air results in healthier and happier communication and increases self-esteem.

If that were the case, then my family should be the healthiest family in the known universe. LOL!

After many years of research, the venting idea has been finally put to rest. Dead.

Contrary to popular belief, blowing off steam is not beneficial. One of the most renowned researchers on anger, Carol Tavris, discovered that people most likely to vent their rage simply get more rather than less angry when they do so (Tavris, 1989). In addition, those on the receiving end of their outbursts get angry too. Perhaps you have noticed this in your own interactions. An angry outburst is followed by more anger and shouting, maybe even crying or violence, reaching a climax. Eventually this is followed by exhaustion and withdrawal and/ or an apology. I used to experience the aftermath of an anger event like an alcohol hangover: physical and emotional wreckage and remorse. Have you noticed how this cycle can be replayed repeatedly with no catharsis or decrease in the level of your anger?

Let anger out and it is met with more anger -- the simple law of cause and effect. It is also the exact definition of karma. Negative energy breeds more negative energy. Behavior such as yelling or even talking out an emotion doesn’t reduce anger, it is literally rehearsal for more of the same. Punching a pillow or a punching bag while thinking of someone you are angry or a situation you dislike is rehearsing violence. In doing that you are creating more anger, or more precisely, more justification for your hate. There have been numerous studies showing that venting anger actually serves to “freeze” hostility. In other words, it serves to keep you stuck in the anger mindset or attitude (Tavris, 1989).

If you have the awareness, you would know from your own experiences that venting does not make hostile feelings go away. Instead, they tend to stick around longer and haunt you. The fact is that the popular assumption about the way to deal with anger, venting it by letting it all out, is worse than useless. Expressing anger does not reduce anger. It actually makes you angrier. Venting also serves to solidify an angry state of mind, escalates anger and aggression, and does nothing to help you resolve the situation. Furthermore, buying into the idea that letting it all out somehow purifies you is dangerous because it becomes a rationale to hurt others. You may have even done this yourself.

I know what you’re saying right now. You’re probably thinking back to the times where you felt relief after venting your anger. The irony is that numerous studies have shown that such relief is not a function of venting your anger, but a learned reaction (Hokanson, 1970). Some people have learned to feel relief following the expression of anger just as others have learned to feel shame or increased compassion after venting. This from of conditioning involves making the mistake of falsely connecting acting out our anger and the calm that follows after the anger has passed. This is a false connection because the fact is that people would have felt calmer anyway after a while, even without acting out their anger.

::blank stare::

Yesterday, as I was heading toward the subway an older man brushed against me, gave me a dirty look, and told me to watch where I was walking. I wanted to tell that muthafucka to go fuck himself and a few other choice ideas, but what I said really threw him off his game. While he was in the process of shooting me the bird, I calmly, but firmly, suggested he seek therapy or sex and even offered to help him pay for it. It made everyone on that train (including me) laugh and he actually looked foolish.

The good news is that you can learn new responses and change how you respond to angry feelings. From this perspective, responding to feelings of anger with angry actions becomes a choice rather than an inevitable self-fulfilling prophesy. Reacting impulsively (acting out) as a response to anger is not inevitable or something you need to keep doing.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization… 

References

Bry, A. (1976). How to get angry without feeling guilty. New York: New American Library.

Hokanson, J. E. (1970). Psychophysiological evaluation of the catharsis hypothesis. In E. I. Megargee & J. E. Hokanson (Eds.), The dynamics of aggression New York: Harper & Row.

Janov, A. (1970). The primal scream. New York: Dell.

Tavris, C. (1989). Anger: The least understood emotion. New York: Touchstone.