If this is patriotism, then I don't want it

Yet another excellent opinion column from the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, which I'm sure they must have done just for my birthday *lol* No, not really... but it's wonderful to have someone looking at the issue of 'patriotism' in the current world climate, particularly when I think the word has been hijacked by many to use instead of what they're really pushing, which is nationalism (a word that sends me into a panic thinking of ghettos, exterminations, discrimination and hate 1930s–1945 style...).

Anyway, the article, by George Monbiot, originally written for The Guardian in England, is called Sounds of war echo in calls to patriotism and makes some excellent points about how patriotism is being used and abused.

Monbiot makes the observation that:
Emboldened by this consensus, The Sun tabloid insists that anyone who isn't loyal to this country (Britain) should leave it. The way things are going, it cannot be long before I am deported... the argument runs as follows: patriotic people do not attack each other... but while patriotism might make citizens less inclined to attack each other, it makes the state more inclined to attack other countries, for it knows it is likely to command the support of its people. If patriotism were not such a powerful force in the US, could bush have invaded Iraq?
To argue that national allegiance reduces human suffering, you must assert that acts of domestic terrorism cause more grievous harm than all territorial and colonial wars, ethnic cleansing and holocausts pursued in the name of the national interest. To believe this, you need to be not just a patriot but a chauvinist.

Hmmm.

How patriotic is it to demand that others who think differently from you be expelled from the country? Yes, I realise that the man that The Sun and other tabloids in England are focusing on is a radical Muslim cleric, but let's look at this rationally. If he's forced from the country, how long will it be before others are made to leave? How long will it take before all Muslims are attacked and vilified in the media? And then once they're gone, who gets turned on next? The Pakistani people? The large Indian population? Anyone who's not white and has a beard? Anyone who has a dissenting opinion?

And is it unpatriotic to have an opinion that differs from the mainstream or party political line? Isn't that just human and important and a sign that we have a healthy democracy where people are allowed to express opinions and have their own thoughts? Doesn't a true democracy allow for people to be different? Isn't that what makes it strong and function at its best?

Lately John Howard and other members of the Liberal party have been talking about how wrong it is for Australian citizens to oppose the government and its decisions (ermm... isn't that what a democracy is all about? The people? Or no? Did it suddenly change and it's now got a new definition that someone failed to include in my dictionary?). And then there's always the good old phrase of, 'It's un-Australian,' which always confuses me. What is it to be Australian? With our massively diverse population that includes many ethnicities, religions and racial groups, how can there be one thing that constitutes 'Australian'? Or are we going by stereotypes, and if so, wouldn't that mean to be Australian, you have to be a man who's white, sexist, narrow-minded, prejudiced against other cultures and races, slang-talking, blue singlet wearing, beer swilling, 'no worries mate,' sport-loving, hard working slacker, bush living and croc wrestler master?

I love Australia, I love being Australian. But there are things that I can see wrong with it, and I think that's an important thing. If you are blinded to faults in others or even your country, you run the risk of allowing a lot of serious problems to occur, get worse and perhaps ultimately destroy things, be it relationships, property or lives. To really care about your country is to be concerned about what it does, to be involved in it and to see its place in the world rather than thinking it is the world.

Thus, I thank goodness for this article, which I think is so important for the current times.

Monbiot has a fantastic ending to his article, which is as follows:
Two weeks ago, the London Telegraph published a list of "10 core values of the British identity" whose adoption, it argued, would help to prevent another terrorist attack. These were not values we might choose to embrace, but "non-negotiable components of our identity".
Among them were "the sovereignty of the crown in Parliament" ("the Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land"), "private property", "the family", "history" ("British children inherit … a stupendous series of national achievements") and "the English-speaking world" ("the atrocities of September 11, 2001 were not simply an attack on a foreign nation; they were an attack on the Anglosphere"). These non-negotiable demands are not so different to those of the terrorists. Instead of an eternal caliphate, an eternal monarchy. Instead of an Islamic vision of history, the one born of Britain's elite boarding school system. Instead of the Ummah, the Anglosphere.
If there is one thing that could make me hate this country, it is the Telegraph and its "non-negotiable components". If there is one thing that could make me hate America, it was the sight of the crowds at the Republican convention standing up and shouting "USA, USA" while Zell Miller informed them that "nothing makes this marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators". As usual, we are being asked to do the job of the terrorists, by making this country ugly on their behalf.
I do not hate Britain, and I am not ashamed of my nationality, but I have no idea why I should love this country more than any other. There are some things I like about it and some things I don't, and the same goes for everywhere else I have visited.
To become a patriot is to lie to yourself, to tell yourself that whatever good you might perceive abroad, your own country is, on balance, better than the others. It is impossible to reconcile this with either the evidence of your own eyes or a belief in the equality of humankind.
Patriotism of the kind Orwell demanded in 1940 is necessary only to confront the patriotism of other people: the Second World War, which demanded that the British close ranks, could not have happened if Hitler hadn't exploited the national allegiance of the Germans.
The world will be a happier and safer place when we stop putting our own countries first.