As our last reading of this extraordinary valuable and special class to me, we have read Robert Jensen’s Citizen’s of the Empire. In overall Jensen argued the following three main points: United States is the “greatest nation,” the “best nation;” we must support our troops; patriotism is a positive value.

When Jensen first argued about how many of the people, or more so the politicians of the United States repeatedly call out how great this country is, how this country is the best out there, and why and what we do outside of our country is because we are the best and strongest nation that stands among most of the world, I thought of a concept that I have learned and both tackled at understanding very carefully what ideas a nation holds: ethnocentric, exocentric, and world centric. It always seems so amusing and funny how all of the materials we learn and read in this class is shown and talked about in other classes too, even though we are talking about two very different examples. Anyways, from what Jensen was arguing, in addition to what I have learned, the United States is a very ethnocentric country that has extremely high pride in the country. Whatever that is said, done or shown is focused on and always seems to tie back into the United States, even if that story is “origined” from outside of the country. Jensen’s argument about this first point was that however proud we may be of our country and in whatever place our country may stand, saying something as to be the best, the greatest is always something to be careful of, because it allows oneself to become too full of oneself. There were a lot of questions that Jensen raised that I thought were very important and quite valuable asking, especially when looking at a minority point of view: being the non white, male, light-skinned, blond-haired Caucasian, even though I was born here.

The second point that Jensen brought up was about whether it is supporting the troops that make us support the war, and how those two can really be looked at separately as well as inseparable. As Janelle talked about on Monday in class, this second argument was where I started questioning whether it really is necessary to be questioning the act of those who are a million and billion miles away from home, from family and friends, believing in serving their country and helping the world become a better place for all. Although I agree with Jensen on some occasions and think of the same questions, I too, like the man mentioned in the article, wanted to ask him many times throughout the reading, “why are you so negative in a lot of your points and even have to question/strongly hold on to the questions ‘do you support the troops or not?'” I too agreed to the man that had questioned Jensen during his lecture (?) and was slightly offended, even though I myself did not serve in the army, by proposing what the troops are doing are not and should not be supported because they are carrying the acts of war. Jensen does, however, mention that he acknowledges that it is those in power, the politicians, the government, the congress, the white house and the president who make those decisions of some illegal, immoral, unjust acts of war, and that the soldiers are only carrying out their “job,” their “duty” because they believe they are doing whatever they are doing for the good, for the people, for the best of all. I must say, I do agree that it is a sensitive topic and people may get upset and quite emotional when talking about troops, and I also respect Jensen’s way of trying to think critically to the hardest things, but I think it was really his way of wording that made his second point sound so much more opinionated himself and biased.

The last thing Jensen describes is the notion of how patriotism is a good thing, a positive thing. I would have to say, I admire Jensen of being the critical thinker and the one trying to target on a topic we usually don’t try to uncover or talk about, at the same time, being a little too critical and overly emotional and opinionated himself at the same time. To talk about how he doesn’t support the troops and is against the war at all beliefs in one chapter, and then talk about how patriotism is a “positive” thing in the next chapter, seems a little unorganized and unsure of what he truly believes in and wants his audience to take away with. In overall, Jensen’s reading was interesting in that it sparked new ideas that we really never even stop to think about and question about, but also felt very unprofessional and biased in only what he believes in, making the article appear a little “unagreeable.”