Sarah's got a guest post up at Dear Author in which she sings the praises of Suzanne Brockmann's novels and, in particular, The Unsung Hero, which she describes as "one of the most perfect books of all time."I was very intrigued by Sarah's comment that "Most of Brockmann’s characters are relentlessly American." What is it that makes them "relentlessly American" rather than just "American"?
Hmmmm. I was going to comment on DA, but since you allude to what troubles me about military romances...
ReplyDeleteMy problem with books about Soldiers/ Navy SEALs etc is that I cannot tolerate excessive patriotism (not with a straight face, anyway), or rather, a jingoistic, bellicose machismo that accompanies tales about heroic soldiers/ men of war.
I don't know if that's fair. I haven't read any Brockman. But, 'relentlessly American' in a military context puts me right off!
I do think that attitude is true to the type of people Brockmann is portraying - heroic soldiers/men of war.
ReplyDelete-Michelle
Meriam, that's exactly why I stayed away from military romances for quite some time -- I really hated the last season or even more of J.A.G. due to the excessive amount of ideology that was being stuffed down viewers' throats.
ReplyDeleteBut as several friends of mine kept singing Brockmann's praises, I finally decided to give her books a try. That was a few weeks ago -- and since then I've been glomming her. What I love about Brockmann is that even though she clearly is patriotic, she's also not afraid to voice criticism, e.g. of the goverment's treatment of veterans in PRINCE JOE.
I don't even mind the WWII subplots -- even if the German phrases in OUT OF CONTROL (which I'm reading at the moment) are full of mistakes. (Why didn't anybody check these things???)
It might be true of the stereotype of people Brockmann is portraying, but it's not true of Brockmann's protrayal of them. Her SEALs and soldiers are not unthinkingly accepting of everything they are ordered to do or might be ordered to do. Most don't appreciate the goatf--k that Iraq has become, most think we shouldn't be there anyway.
ReplyDeleteWhile I will admit that Brockman's portrayal of military men was part of the reason I could even consider joining the National Guard after 9/11, a large part of WHY I could consider it was because her men (and women) are not unthinkingly jingoistic or full of bellicose machismo.
Brockmann has her SEALs say that they're peace-keepers rather than war-makers, and then has them explain that in a way that you believe them. Brockmann herself is a pacifict and a bleeding-heart, pinko-commie liberal, and while there is absolutely no disdain for the soldiers and sailors she writes about in her writing, they are perhaps slightly more intellectual about their patriotism than they might otherwise be because of her political views.
So of all the military authors out there, Brockmann might be the best to read precisely in light of your issues with military romances, Meriam.
I loathe contemporary military settings/characters, and the foreign (American) milieu adds to the sense of alienation for me. I can read novels set in the Second World War or earlier (either side), but anything post-1945 - no. And even then, I do not like too much dwelling on military activities. As for jingoistic patriotism, well, that's just immodest Bad Form as far as I am concerned. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI have, surprisingly, read a couple of Brockmann's books, though it was several years ago and I remember very little about them, except that I must have decided to avoid them in future because of her characters and settings.
She is evidently a good writer, so more power to her. Just not for me. Of course, I could also argue about the alleged wonderfulness of scant description and masses of dialogue, but this may not be the place. I love lots of visual description, and get bored and impatient with reading something that looks more like a screenplay than a novel; this seems to be the current trend in popular novels (because it brings down the readability score so much, perhaps?). Crusie is getting that way, alas - and I have regretfully given up on her after her first, disastrous, collaboration with Mayer, and that idiotic thing she recently published with two other writers.
Sorry, off-topic somewhat.
;-)
her men (and women) are not unthinkingly jingoistic
ReplyDeleteI looked up the online Oxford Dictionary's definition, just to get a handle on the terminology:
jingoism
• noun chiefly derogatory extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive foreign policy.
I've only read two of Brockmann's novels, both Harlequin/Mills & Boon romances, and there was a central patriotic speech/conversation in each of them. The characters were, as you say, "intellectual about their patriotism."
Does that mean one could say that they're thinkingly jingoistic? Since, according to the same dictionary a patriot is "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it" what can be defined as "jingoistic" would appear to be entirely dependent on what is considered to be "extreme patriotism" and what level of vigour is deemed appropriate in this context.
I did get a sense from the novels that the characters believed that America was a very special country and that its role on the world stage was to defend democracy.
Brockmann herself is a pacifict
I wouldn't have guessed that from reading her novels. Going back to the dictionary,
pacifism
• noun the belief that disputes should be settled by peaceful means and that war and violence are unjustifiable.
Or, to quote from the Peace Pledge Union's website, pacifism is "The belief and, consequently, conduct of those who believe that war and the employment of organized armed force are unjustifiable."
It's interesting that a pacifist author would create novels which contain so many characters who are in the military, who are intended to be read as heroic, and who believe that war and violence are entirely justifiable, under certain circumstances. It's particularly interesting that such an author should do so in a way which is clearly moving and convincing enough to motivate someone like you to join the military.
Obviously authors can use their imaginations to get into the mindsets of, and write about, people who have very different personalities, life-experiences, beliefs etc from their own. That said, given that Brockmann has used her fiction to champion some of her other beliefs I'm a bit surprised that she would write so many novels which seem to consistently endorse what might be considered an anti-pacifist mind-set.
The term "jingoism" comes from this popular British music-hall song of the Victorian era:
ReplyDeleteMacdermott's War Song
The "Dogs of War" are loose and the rugged Russian Bear,
All bent on blood and robbery has crawled out of his lair...
It seems a thrashing now and then, will never help to tame...
That brute, and so he's out upon the "same old game"...
The Lion did his best... to find him some excuse...
To crawl back to his den again. All efforts were no use...
He hunger'd for his victim. He's pleased when blood is shed...
But let us hope his crimes may all recoil on his own head...
Chorus:
We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do...
We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!
We've fought the Bear before... and while we're Britons true,
The Russians shall not have Constantinople...
The misdeeds of the Turks have been "spouted" through all lands,
But how about the Russians, can they show spotless hands?
They slaughtered well at Khiva, in Siberia icy cold.
How many subjects done to death we'll ne'er perhaps be told.
They butchered the Circassians, man, woman yes and child.
With cruelties their Generals their murderous hours beguiled,
And poor unhappy Poland their cruel yoke must bear,
While prayers for "Freedom and Revenge" go up into the air.
(Chorus)
May he who 'gan the quarrel soon have to bite the dust.
The Turk should be thrice armed for "he hath his quarrel just."
'Tis said that countless thousands should die through cruel war,
But let us hope most fervently ere long it shall be o'er.
Let them be warned: Old England is brave Old England still.
We've proved our might, we've claimed our right, and ever, ever will.
Should we have to draw the sword our way to victory we'll forge,
With the Battle cry of Britons, "Old England and St George!"
(chorus)
My problem with books about Soldiers/ Navy SEALs etc is that I cannot tolerate excessive patriotism (not with a straight face, anyway), or rather, a jingoistic, bellicose machismo that accompanies tales about heroic soldiers/ men of war.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that's fair. I haven't read any Brockman. But, 'relentlessly American' in a military context puts me right off!
That's a hot button for me as well--I strongly dislike both patriotism and national sterotyping, and the term "relentlessly American" really put me off for both those reasons. However, I've read several Brockmann novels and they're not quite the way that sounds--or not all of them. I thought her category romances had some overt, simplistic messages (and a generally fairytale kind of stereotyping that I don't like about some category lines), but I've enjoyed a couple of the longer novels with the WW II stories interwoven. Some of the characters in that series are much more individualistic in both intellect and belief.
I actually appreciate that Brockmann's found a less jingoistic, more thoughtful way to write about being a soldier and being a "patriot" (in a sense that's not about one-up-manship and overweening pride). I'm afraid I too easily write off books (and people) as soon as national pride comes up, but that sentiment really shouldn't be defined by its most obnoxious exemplars.
You know, by "relentlessly American," I didn't mean stupid. And "patriotic," to me, isn't automatically a negative thing. I am an American soldier myself, after all, and I don't think that means I'm into blind obedience--in fact, American soldiers are at least trained specifically against blind obedience. So I'm feeling rather flummoxed by the discussion here. It's like we're speaking a different language. And maybe we are. I just meant that Brockmann's characters are "mom and apple pie" American, proud of being American--including, I might add, the naturalized Americans among them.
ReplyDeleteI guess I was trying to get at the point that she's not like Susan Elizabeth Phillips who actually seems to have a pretty high percentage of non-US characters. Or even Nora. Suz writes about Americans, the good, the bad, and the ugly. But that doesn't mean that we all (including the naturalized ones among us) think that everything this country has done in the past eight years (or even more than that) is a good and necessary thing. Trust me. And you should hear Suz talk about Obama.
So while I appreciate the comments, as I do all comments, I'm trying hard not to be just ever so slightly insulted, and also wondering (as in awe and wonder) about the range of meanings that can be attributes to words.
And as for Brockmann's pacifism, all I can relate is her own labeling of herself: "I believe that war is unhealthy for children and other living things . . . I believe that nonviolence is the best way to go, but if you threaten one of my children, I will rip your heart out with my bare hands" (from her "Into the Fire Extras for Readers and Writers" booklet. Okay, so not pacifism in the strictest sense as you defined it, but still, she's not an unthinking patriotism-above-all-else, nationalistic propagandist. Not by any stretch of the imagination. She shows the bad side of racial profiling in this "War on Terror." She shows the bad side of our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and how they're leaving both our soldiers and our allies vulnerable (characters die because their Humvees aren't up-armored or because US forces pull out of that part of the country). She shows what I would call "true" patriotism (which I think is different from "nationalism"--that's where I'd place the negative connotation) in which someone can love their country for its ideals and opportunities and hate what's happening to it because of misguided (some might even say evil) politicians and policies.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to whether folks posting think that Americans on the whole are more patriotic than other countrymen. It's been my experience that most people are proud of where they come from, etc.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Brockmann gives a nuanced portrayal of military people, but I also stand by my earlier statement that military folks are more patriotic than the average person - at least that's been my experience having grown up in a military family surrounded by mostly non-military families. (I also think there are strong regional differences on the willingness to be outwardly patriotic in the US.) There's no getting around that these people are saying they are willing to die for their country.
But, it's also my experience that once they get to a certain age they also tend to be very thoughtful about questions of war and peace.
Michelle, I absolutely agree with you. Military folk ARE more patriotic. I'm just baffled by the implication I'm reading into other people's comments here that patriotic=bad and even laughable. Maybe I'm reading that wrong and/or maybe we have different definitions of patriotism (or even of "Americans") but that's the vibe I'm getting. But I agree with your last sentence, too. While I've met some scary people in the military because of their unthinking allegiance, I've also met some the smartest people I know in the military, people who think more about what it means to be an American and the sacrifices that takes and the privileges that give you, than most of the other Americans I know.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to whether folks posting think that Americans on the whole are more patriotic than other countrymen. It's been my experience that most people are proud of where they come from, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience Americans aren't more patriotic than others. Though a Canadian would tell you Americans are obnoxiously patriotic, and Canadians are sooooo much better because naturally Canada's the best. While Americans would tell you Canadians' national pride is unbelievable ;) I'm not saying anything serious about either country, just emphasizing that perceptions of others' patriotic fervor often don't hold up when we examine our own beliefs.
I do think American messages are heard more loudly in many parts of the world (including online), which can create that impression; and there's a funny type of patriotic rhetoric in politics that I think gets amplified by the media into something that can sound jingoistic.
I also think there's an increasing tendency to label what's "American". This may be crazy, but I blame reality TV for some of it and Fox News for the rest. The "America thinks", "America is", "America chooses" language makes no sense to me, given the diversity of the country, but I see that phrasing in the US and world media, and frequently online.
It's interesting that a pacifist author would create novels which contain so many characters who are in the military, who are intended to be read as heroic, and who believe that war and violence are entirely justifiable, under certain circumstances.
Laura, it *is* interesting about Brockmann's novels, but if that's also intended to be about the real world, I think it's a malformed syllogism. Being in the military doesn't mean believing war is justifiable. I went to graduate school with a couple of military men who are brilliant, scholarly, and yes, I would definitely call them pacifists. They're very aware that they're performing a balancing act; I find it reassuring that they're in the positions they are, and that one of these guys (whom I find a very subtle, thoughtful thinker) specializes in the Middle East. If every intelligent, peace-loving person had my weak stomach and stiff neck, the military would be the worse for it.
I'm just baffled by the implication I'm reading into other people's comments here that patriotic=bad and even laughable. Maybe I'm reading that wrong and/or maybe we have different definitions of patriotism (or even of "Americans") but that's the vibe I'm getting.
Sarah, I can see why some of this conversation might have stung you--and you've pointed out an area where the rest of us are being reactionary. As I alluded to above, I think the few obnoxiously/exclusionary patriotic people out there are the ones that currently dominate what "patriotism" means. In romance, just as there are novels with a clear message that marriage is a woman's sole goal in life, there are others that say the US is the greatest country on earth, being a fireman is more worthy than being a professor, and many other social messages. I feel an uncomfortable culture clash with quite a few of those messages because they sound like propaganda--including the patriotic one. I *think* they used to crop up mainly in category romance, but the line has blurred in the last decade.
Then we have to deal with the backlash against those messages. The US has a strong tradition of being negative about the US; that's been getting even more play in the last few presidencies. In that setting, I think it's easy to get defensive or protective and react against patriotic messages. Rather like US liberals who were upset by The New Yorker's Obama cover. It's protective: don't give the haters any fodder.
Anyway, something close to my favorite version of patriotism is the hymn set to Sibelius' Finlandia (here, with a nicely patriotic slideshow).
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
Here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine.
But other hearts in other lands are beating
With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.
My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
And sunlight beams on clover-leaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too and clover,
And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
Oh, hear my song, O God of all the nations,
A song of peace for their land and for mine.
I don't think Brockmann's books or characters are jingoistic. Yes, she loves her country and this shines through in her novels, but she loves it warts and all. And she is aware that there are warts.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to whether folks posting think that Americans on the whole are more patriotic than other countrymen.
I'm from a country where, thanks to our past, patriotism is considered a Really Bad Thing. Our national flag is only flown in front of state buildings like town halls, and we only ever sing the national anthem when we "must", e.g. before an international sports event. It was only during the last European championship that there was a sudden and rather startling surge of national pride: suddenly German flags appeared everywhere as nearly everbody had a flag hanging out of their window, and mini flags for cars were immensely popular (and lined the sides of the highways).
Given this background, a lot of what is considered perfectly normal in the US is still totally alien for me. But then, so is the amount of Union Jacks and the singing of Rule Britannia at the Last Night of the Proms in London.
A Cosmopolite in a Cafe
ReplyDeleteby O Henry
At midnight the cafe was crowded. By some chance the little table at which I sat had escaped the eye of incomers, and two vacant chairs at it extended their arms with venal hospitality to the influx of patrons.
And then a cosmopolite sat in one of them, and I was glad, for I held a theory that since Adam no true citizen of the world has existed. We hear of them, and we see foreign labels on much luggage, but we find travellers instead of cosmopolites.
I invoke your consideration of the scene--the marble-topped tables, the range of leather-upholstered wall seats, the gay company, the ladies dressed in demi-state toilets, speaking in an exquisite visible chorus of taste, economy, opulence or art; the sedulous and largess-loving garcons, the music wisely catering to all with its raids upon the composers; the melange of talk and laughter--and, if you will, the Wurzburger in the tall glass cones that bend to your lips as a ripe cherry sways on its branch to the beak of a robber jay. I was told by a sculptor from Mauch Chunk that the scene was truly Parisian.
My cosmopolite was named E. Rushmore Coglan, and he will be heard from next summer at Coney Island. He is to establish a new "attraction" there, he informed me, offering kingly diversion. And then his conversation rang along parallels of latitude and longitude. He took the great, round world in his hand, so to speak, familiarly, contemptuously, and it seemed no larger than the seed of a Maraschino cherry in a table d'hote grape fruit. He spoke disrespectfully of the equator, he skipped from continent to continent, he derided the zones, he mopped up the high seas with his napkin. With a wave of his hand he would speak of a certain bazaar in Hyderabad. Whiff! He would have you on skis in Lapland. Zip! Now you rode the breakers with the Kanakas at Kealaikahiki. Presto! He dragged you through an Arkansas post-oak swamp, let you dry for a moment on the alkali plains of his Idaho ranch, then whirled you into the society of Viennese archdukes. Anon he would be telling you of a cold he acquired in a Chicago lake breeze and how old Escamila cured it in Buenos Ayres with a hot infusion of the chuchula weed. You would have addressed a letter to "E. Rushmore Coglan, Esq., the Earth, Solar System, the Universe," and have mailed it, feeling confident that it would be delivered to him.
I was sure that I had found at last the one true cosmopolite since Adam, and I listened to his worldwide discourse fearful lest I should discover in it the local note of the mere globe-trotter. But his opinions never fluttered or drooped; he was as impartial to cities, countries and continents as the winds or gravitation. And as E. Rushmore Coglan prattled of this little planet I thought with glee of a great almost-cosmopolite who wrote for the whole world and dedicated himself to Bombay. In a poem he has to say that there is pride and rivalry between the cities of the earth, and that "the men that breed from them, they traffic up and down, but cling to their cities' hem as a child to the mother's gown." And whenever they walk "by roaring streets unknown" they remember their native city "most faithful, foolish, fond; making her mere-breathed name their bond upon their bond." And my glee was roused because I had caught Mr. Kipling napping. Here I had found a man not made from dust; one who had no narrow boasts of birthplace or country, one who, if he bragged at all, would brag of his whole round globe against the Martians and the inhabitants of the Moon.
Expression on these subjects was precipitated from E. Rushmore Coglan by the third corner to our table. While Coglan was describing to me the topography along the Siberian Railway the orchestra glided into a medley. The concluding air was "Dixie," and as the exhilarating notes tumbled forth they were almost overpowered by a great clapping of hands from almost every table.
It is worth a paragraph to say that this remarkable scene can be witnessed every evening in numerous cafes in the City of New York. Tons of brew have been consumed over theories to account for it. Some have conjectured hastily that all Southerners in town hie themselves to cafes at nightfall. This applause of the "rebel" air in a Northern city does puzzle a little; but it is not insolvable. The war with Spain, many years' generous mint and watermelon crops, a few long-shot winners at the New Orleans race-track, and the brilliant banquets given by the Indiana and Kansas citizens who compose the North Carolina Society have made the South rather a "fad" in Manhattan. Your manicure will lisp softly that your left forefinger reminds her so much of a gentleman's in Richmond, Va. Oh, certainly; but many a lady has to work now--the war, you know.
When "Dixie" was being played a dark-haired young man sprang up from somewhere with a Mosby guerrilla yell and waved frantically his soft- brimmed hat. Then he strayed through the smoke, dropped into the vacant chair at our table and pulled out cigarettes.
The evening was at the period when reserve is thawed. One of us mentioned three Wurzburgers to the waiter; the dark-haired young man acknowledged his inclusion in the order by a smile and a nod. I hastened to ask him a question because I wanted to try out a theory I had.
"Would you mind telling me," I began, "whether you are from--"
The fist of E. Rushmore Coglan banged the table and I was jarred into silence.
"Excuse me," said he, "but that's a question I never like to hear asked. What does it matter where a man is from? Is it fair to judge a man by his post-office address? Why, I've seen Kentuckians who hated whiskey, Virginians who weren't descended from Pocahontas, Indianians who hadn't written a novel, Mexicans who didn't wear velvet trousers with silver dollars sewed along the seams, funny Englishmen, spendthrift Yankees, cold-blooded Southerners, narrow- minded Westerners, and New Yorkers who were too busy to stop for an hour on the street to watch a one-armed grocer's clerk do up cranberries in paper bags. Let a man be a man and don't handicap him with the label of any section."
"Pardon me," I said, "but my curiosity was not altogether an idle one. I know the South, and when the band plays 'Dixie' I like to observe. I have formed the belief that the man who applauds that air with special violence and ostensible sectional loyalty is invariably a native of either Secaucus, N.J., or the district between Murray Hill Lyceum and the Harlem River, this city. I was about to put my opinion to the test by inquiring of this gentleman when you interrupted with your own--larger theory, I must confess."
And now the dark-haired young man spoke to me, and it became evident that his mind also moved along its own set of grooves.
"I should like to be a periwinkle," said he, mysteriously, "on the top of a valley, and sing tooralloo-ralloo."
This was clearly too obscure, so I turned again to Coglan.
"I've been around the world twelve times," said he. "I know an Esquimau in Upernavik who sends to Cincinnati for his neckties, and I saw a goatherder in Uruguay who won a prize in a Battle Creek breakfast food puzzle competition. I pay rent on a room in Cairo, Egypt, and another in Yokohama all the year around. I've got slippers waiting for me in a tea-house in Shanghai, and I don't have to tell 'em how to cook my eggs in Rio de Janeiro or Seattle. It's a mighty little old world. What's the use of bragging about being from the North, or the South, or the old manor house in the dale, or Euclid avenue, Cleveland, or Pike's Peak, or Fairfax County, Va., or Hooligan's Flats or any place? It'll be a better world when we quit being fools about some mildewed town or ten acres of swampland just because we happened to be born there."
"You seem to be a genuine cosmopolite," I said admiringly. "But it also seems that you would decry patriotism."
"A relic of the stone age," declared Coglan, warmly. "We are all brothers--Chinamen, Englishmen, Zulus, Patagonians and the people in the bend of the Kaw River. Some day all this petty pride in one's city or State or section or country will be wiped out, and we'll all be citizens of the world, as we ought to be."
"But while you are wandering in foreign lands," I persisted, "do not your thoughts revert to some spo--some dear and--"
"Nary a spot," interrupted E. R. Coglan, flippantly. "The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, slightly flattened at the poles, and known as the Earth, is my abode. I've met a good many object-bound citizens of this country abroad. I've seen men from Chicago sit in a gondola in Venice on a moonlight night and brag about their drainage canal. I've seen a Southerner on being introduced to the King of England hand that monarch, without batting his eyes, the information that his grandaunt on his mother's side was related by marriage to the Perkinses, of Charleston. I knew a New Yorker who was kidnapped for ransom by some Afghanistan bandits. His people sent over the money and he came back to Kabul with the agent. 'Afghanistan?' the natives said to him through an interpreter. 'Well, not so slow, do you think?' 'Oh, I don't know,' says he, and he begins to tell them about a cab driver at Sixth avenue and Broadway. Those ideas don't suit me. I'm not tied down to anything that isn't 8,000 miles in diameter. Just put me down as E. Rushmore Coglan, citizen of the terrestrial sphere."
My cosmopolite made a large adieu and left me, for he thought he saw some one through the chatter and smoke whom he knew. So I was left with the would-be periwinkle, who was reduced to Wurzburger without further ability to voice his aspirations to perch, melodious, upon the summit of a valley.
I sat reflecting upon my evident cosmopolite and wondering how the poet had managed to miss him. He was my discovery and I believed in him. How was it? "The men that breed from them they traffic up and down, but cling to their cities' hem as a child to the mother's gown."
Not so E. Rushmore Coglan. With the whole world for his--
My meditations were interrupted by a tremendous noise and conflict in another part of the cafe. I saw above the heads of the seated patrons E. Rushmore Coglan and a stranger to me engaged in terrific battle. They fought between the tables like Titans, and glasses crashed, and men caught their hats up and were knocked down, and a brunette screamed, and a blonde began to sing "Teasing."
My cosmopolite was sustaining the pride and reputation of the Earth when the waiters closed in on both combatants with their famous flying wedge formation and bore them outside, still resisting.
I called McCarthy, one of the French garcons, and asked him the cause of the conflict.
"The man with the red tie" (that was my cosmopolite), said he, "got hot on account of things said about the bum sidewalks and water supply of the place he come from by the other guy."
"Why," said I, bewildered, "that man is a citizen of the world--a cosmopolite. He--"
"Originally from Mattawamkeag, Maine, he said," continued McCarthy, "and he wouldn't stand for no knockin' the place."
You know, by "relentlessly American," I didn't mean stupid.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone implied that was the case.
And "patriotic," to me, isn't automatically a negative thing. [...] She shows what I would call "true" patriotism (which I think is different from "nationalism"--that's where I'd place the negative connotation) in which someone can love their country for its ideals and opportunities and hate what's happening to it because of misguided (some might even say evil) politicians and policies.
Ah. But nationalism comes in many different varieties. One can find democratic, non-violent, non-racist nationalist political parties, who wish independence because it is likely to increase democracy (by reducing the distance between voters and those who govern). In these cases nationalism can perhaps be thought of as an extension of the belief in devolution/subsidiarity.
The Scottish Nationalist Party, for example, wishes Scotland to become independent, but that's for mostly practical, political reasons e.g. control over tax revenue, differences of opinion with Labour and the Conservatives about nuclear deterrents. If you look at their website you'll find statements like this one:
Most of us also want our communities to have more independence. We want to have a greater say in deciding how our public services should be funded and delivered, we want to participate in decisions which affect the environment around us and we want to contribute more to the communities we live in. That too is normal - but it won't happen unless we start by taking control of our country and taking decisions for ourselves.
So it's a nationalism that's about organising layers of government so that they're closer to the governed. It's not an expansionist or racist form of nationalism.
Patriotism, however mild or extreme, seems to be constructed around an emotion, love for a country, "someone can love their country for its ideals and opportunities." I think there's an emotional difference between being politically in favour of, and even a strong supporter of, certain ideals, and loving a particular country because it has those ideals.
as for Brockmann's pacifism, all I can relate is her own labeling of herself: "I believe that war is unhealthy for children and other living things . . . I believe that nonviolence is the best way to go, but if you threaten one of my children, I will rip your heart out with my bare hands" [...] Okay, so not pacifism in the strictest sense as you defined it, but still, she's not an unthinking patriotism-above-all-else, nationalistic propagandist
Yes, that's not pacifism as I'd understand it.
Being in the military doesn't mean believing war is justifiable. I went to graduate school with a couple of military men who are brilliant, scholarly, and yes, I would definitely call them pacifists. They're very aware that they're performing a balancing act
Again, I find it difficult to understand how they can be pacifists, given the very strong connection between pacifism and conscientious objection. It would be interesting to know more about how they think about their "balancing act."
The Peace Pledge Union helpfully provides some more definitions:
Pacifism: advocacy of opposition to war through individual or collective action against militarism.
Pacifism: the doctrine of opposition to all wars, including civil wars. Its most obvious feature is the personal commitment to non-participation in wars, except possibly in a non-combatant role. Pacifists also advocate efforts to maintain peace and support disarmament.
The "non-combatant role" in this case refers to serving in something like the Friends' Ambulance Unit.
Patriotism seems to me to be almost innate. The great majority of people, unless they have suffered a great deal in their lives, feel real affection for and pride in their country, just as most feel affection for their families. It is not 'good' or 'bad'; it just is.
ReplyDeleteLoud and vulgar overt displays of patriotism are another matter. This was the norm in Britain throughout the height of the British Empire. Brits used to make a point of going on about how wonderful they were, how much better than other nationalities. As a country now sunk deep in post-Imperial guilt, echoes of such excesses have become excruciatingly embarrassing to most Brits (including the Last Night of the Proms, Sandra, which can be defended only in terms of deliberate irony, acting the part of Victorian Imperialists. Have you ever seen the words of the second and third verses of our musically appalling National Anthem? Don't. No wonder we only ever sing the first verse now).
Do people see no difference between feeling proud and affectionate towards family members, and going around saying things like, 'hey, my daughter has just got a first-class degree! She is so BRILLIANT! She is extremely beautiful, too. I am so lucky to have such a great daughter! But then, we are altogether such wonderful family!'
This is ill-mannered and vulgar. Everyone KNOWS that one likes one's family/country. One preserves a decent reticence about the fact, knowing that everyone else feels the same about their countries/families.
So patriotism, yes: it is fine, but just keep QUIET about it. Don't BOAST. We all have things to boast about - and we all have things to be ashamed of. Part of the human condition.
Jingoism: no. Having read only a couple of Brockmann's books, I can't judge whether she crosses the line, and anyway, the thing I really hate is the whole military milieu. I do not wish to offend Brockmann and her admirers, and I do not have the evidence to hand, anyway. But we should all try to understand the definition of patriotism better. It is a natural and perfectly proper feeling, but flaunting it, making an unseemly song and dance about it, can all too easily be offensive to others.
given the very strong connection between pacifism and conscientious objection
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think that rests on a syllogism that requires a narrow definition.
I'm by no means a war hawk--quite the opposite. But I have no trouble with the idea that some people see military service as a more active way to do good--peaceful good--by influencing decisions and going to disrupted areas in person, instead of staying home and objecting after the fact. (In practice, usually a large chunk of the western modern military's time is spent on work that looks more like Unicef than war, because the military takes the view that there can't be peace without stability, water, and schools.) You may disagree that that's a valid way to *be* a pacifist--fine by me. But if you're denying the *motivation*, then that I disagree with.
Do people see no difference between feeling proud and affectionate towards family members, and going around saying things like, 'hey, my daughter has just got a first-class degree!
AgTigress, I think many of us have a strong fear of having to read, listen to, or spend time around the boastful form. Unfortunately when we see the word "patriotism" we picture the worst expression of that sentiment, not the garden variety. It's the more unfortunate if that reaction is so strong that someone can't discuss characters without our assuming that their views will be swaggeringly stated and distasteful.
At the same time, I think a few really badly written books are probably responsible for some of this reaction. I know I run the other way every time I see a book cover touting a secret baby, chauffeur's son made good, soldier, or made-up kingdom name. I know cover blurbs are poor at conveying quality, but the negative associations are strong. I only needed to read one appallingly stereotyped Italian boss to be leery forever.
I have no trouble with the idea that some people see military service as a more active way to do good--peaceful good--by influencing decisions and going to disrupted areas in person, instead of staying home and objecting after the fact.[...] You may disagree that that's a valid way to *be* a pacifist--fine by me. But if you're denying the *motivation*, then that I disagree with.
ReplyDeleteI've no doubt that a great many, if not most, people would very sincerely like to see world peace, but a belief that peace is a worthwhile goal is not identical to believing that only peaceful means should be used to achieve peace.
Armed "peace-keeping" is never going to be pacifist as I'd understand the term, because the threat of force is always held in reserve.
And there are many options open to pacifists other than "staying home and objecting after the fact."
'Armed "peace-keeping" is never going to be pacifist as I'd understand the term'.
ReplyDeleteI agree. My definition of pacifism is a precise one, a turn-the-other-cheek one, which is why I do not call myself a pacifist. Although I see no possible moral justification for arbitrarily meddling in other countries' affairs uninvited, I do feel that people (and countries) are entitled to defend themselves, and even others, against aggression in certain circumstances, and even to use violent means to do so if nothing else seems to work. Therefore, I am not a pacifist. A pacifist would only ever use peaceful, non-violent means to try to resolve a problem. To follow that credo is a counsel of perfection. I accept that, in this sadly imperfect world, it is probably necessary to have armed forces.
Just to put things in perspective, I avoid books set within the milieu of any sport just as assiduously as I avoid military settings. There are some sports that I can watch for slightly more than 30 seconds without intense boredom setting in (cricket, anything with horses), but that doesn't mean I want to read a novel full of stuff about sports and sportspersons.
rfp: you will see that I accept patriotism as normal - neither right nor wrong, just an instinctive human feeling. it is normal self-esteem on the national, rather than personal, level. It is the undue public parade of it that offends me, and by 'undue', I mean too loud, too often, too intrusive, too emphatic, too central. The occasional formal display of national pride on a specific day or anniversary is perfectly okay, and is not discourteous to other countries. Constant harping on about one's own perceived superiority is patronising and rude to others. As I said, the British (especially the English) have been guilty of a LOT of that over the past 300 years or so: the deep resentments which it bred are still with us, even when we can prove that British rule sometimes brought notable benefits. Countries, like people, wish to, and are entitled to, achieve their own successes - and make their own mistakes; advances don't count if imposed upon you from outside. We are living with the long shadow of our Empire, and have, I hope, learned better manners at least as far as internationally jingoistic conduct is concerned. We are still meddling far too much, though. These lessons take centuries to learn, and they are painful for all concerned.
When I think pacifist, what tends to come to mind first are Quakers, and they do have a long history of not serving in the military.
ReplyDeleteArmed "peace-keeping"
ReplyDeleteI never mentioned anything of the sort.
And there are many options open to pacifists other than "staying home and objecting after the fact."
I didn't say otherwise.
All right, I'm done. I get the feeling it's not coming across that my argument is not meant to reflect *my beliefs* but a logic that leads to us not trying all kinds of books because we fear the worst. Sometimes we're right; sometimes it means we miss out on getting a perspective that's different from ours but *not* obnoxiously so.
RfP, I love those lyrics, although it's slightly ironic that they're set to such a nationalistic piece of music! ;) I think I get your point, and I understand and even agree with most of it. Especially about reading things outside our normal comfort zone. Because that's certainly what I did when I read Brockmann's military romances for the first time. And I wouldn't have continued to read them if her patriotism hadn't been so thoughtful and intelligent. And understated.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm trying to say is that being in the military probably means that you're more patriotic than the normal citizen, but that patriotism is not in and of itself an overt display of itself, if that makes sense. Just being in the military does not mean one is obnoxious about one's patriotism. There are some obnoxious members of the Armed Forces who go overboard with their adoration for their country, true. But it's not a given. And I'd argue that Brockmann does more to raise these issues and consider them intelligently than to flaunt a cheap patriotism. I wouldn't be so enamored of her writing if that's what she did.
'...Quakers, and they do have a long history of not serving in the military.'
ReplyDeleteYes. As Laura spelt out in one of her posts, pacifists cannot, in all honesty, serve in the armed forces, and must be conscientious objectors in times of war. Like members of the Society of Friends in both World Wars, they may choose to take part in conflicts in non-combatant roles, but they must not fight.
I think that using 'pacifist' to mean 'a person who does not glorify war, and who deprecates violence as a means of solving problems, but is prepared to fight, physically, in defence of what he/she believes to be right' (i.e. a description of a lot of us, including, no doubt, Ms. Brockmann and many serving in the armed forces of sundry countries) is a misuse of the word. That definition is NOT a pacifist, but merely a fairly average pragmatic person. Pacifism is an extreme doctrine, and an admirable one, but one that few of us would have the courage and control to espouse totally.
In my reading of Ms. Brockmann's books, I've often felt that what she was giving to readers was a more palatable version of myths. The myth of the man who is both strong in the ways patriarchy values/trains strength and good; the myth of violence that is righteous and ultimately justifiable. And it has bothered me because I think that it requires a certain whitewashing of the power structures at work. In the case of militarism and patriotism... even though her soldiers are good, thoughtful soldiers, they're still participating in foreign policy that's come about through American imperialism grounded in racist ideology which disrespects the sovereignty of other nations and the value of non-American lives. Brockmann's characters are, from what I've seen, making the best of a bad situation, but that is still a problematic exercise, even if it's a necessary one.
ReplyDeleteAs an American, I don't see why believing that my country stands for democracy and liberty is any more historically accurate than believing that my country stands for genocide, slavery, and the rape of the environment. To select out only the things I *like* about my country and salute them as the rightful heart and soul of my country makes me uncomfortable. It's such cherry-picking, and it deemphasizes the evil, grasping, cruel things which are as much a part of us, imo, as the good.