POLARIZING PATRIOTISM
Far be it from us to tell another country how to celebrate its patriotism, especially since Canada is not the most extroverted of nations when it comes to national symbols.
Few of us hang the Maple Leaf on our front porches. We proudly stitch small flags on backpacks and wear lapel pins on overseas trips, albeit partly to avoid the “You’re American” assumptions of foreign accent guessers.
But as a concerned friend and neighbour, we can’t help but comment on the polarizing atmosphere in the U.S. over its national symbols.
The controversy that won’t die started in
2016 when Colin Kaepernick, the now unemployed quarterback, was noticed sitting down during the national anthem at an NFL pre-season game. When asked about it, he explained: “I’m not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour.”
The powder keg was lit. The sitting became kneeling and was adopted by other players. They were quickly accused of disrespecting their national anthem, their flag and members of the armed forces, past and present.
The debate expanded, eventually attracting comments from the Polarizer in Chief, Donald Trump, who suggested the white team owners fire the primarily black protesters.
The flag debate took another incendiary turn recently over a supposed slight in the film First Man, featuring the story of astronaut
Neil Armstrong (played by a Canadian actor). The movie fails to show the planting of the American flag on the American moon. Those critics fail to recall that Armstrong celebrated NASA’S achievement on behalf of all earthlings: “That’s one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.”
Yet to some, the issue is reduced to “You’re disrespecting the flag.” What is forgotten or ignored is that the flag is only a symbol; a symbol for a country that has a long history of civil rights marches and protests that have advanced many worthy causes. It also has a history of slavery, lynchings, police brutality and supporting tinpot dictators, but we digress.
The point is the symbol should not be more important than the underlying civil rights that are enshrined in a constitution that really is worth preserving and protecting.
In the editorial-writing business, this is where we usually pose a possible solution. But we’ve got nothing. If a sensible discussion can’t replace the endless reaction and counter-reaction, then there’s no hope for fixing the bigger problems. We don’t see that happening in the current climate.