In “Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity,” Robert Jensen seeks to deconstruct “three crucial rhetorical frameworks that have been difficult to challenge in public.” The first one is the claim that the United States is the best country in the entire world. The second claim is that it is imperative for an American to support the troops because they fight for our freedom. Lastly, he deconstructs the claim that patriotism is a good thing.

Jensen says that these claims are problematic. They are “depraved and dangerous, especially when made in the empire.” This makes sense to me. I think that this is a notion that many people have, but also that many people do not have.

I think that this article could cause a lot of drama within our class. It seems that we are pretty split—some of us appear to be liberal, some of us are conservative. A lot of us do not voice those opinions at all, or appear to be “middle of the road.” I think it is safe to conclude that we all think it is important to question our government, however.

At the end of the reading, Robert Jensen admits that he is a “typical white middle-class American” who has never lived outside the United States, spoken, another language, traveled extensively outside of our continent, and has no plans to live anywhere other than the United States. Is this problematic? I think it appears to be, but really isn’t. Though Jensen’s lens may be narrower than others’ who have lived outside North America or who speak another language, he in fact, is average. We cannot expect someone who is very different from the majority of Americans (who in fact are like Jensen described himself) to appeal to Americans, since this is the only way to change culture.

I think all of this is a culture shift. We talked in class about how even as early as World War II, it was unthinkable to question the government. We compared it to today’s war, but this is false. At the time, people did protest. We just don’t hear about it since we romanticize that time of patriotism. There are many other factors, too, that make WWII different from the War in Iraq. There was a draft, which meant that everyone knew someone who was overseas or who had died. Americans were called to help the war effort—conserving different materials, growing their own food, even women entering the factories to produce war materials. There was also a TON of government-issued propaganda.

I don’t want to discredit either conflict, they’re just not comparable.

This week’s reading, “Citizens of the Empire,” by Robert Jensen, juxtaposes the “patriotism” shared among American citizens with the idea that this radiating ethnocentrism could potentially threaten the “survival of the planet.”  In the first section of the reading, Jensen specifically writes about America’s assertion that it is “the greatest nation in history.”  To most Americans, what it means to be an American citizen is directly related to having an unconditional loyalty to this country and whole-heartedly believing that indeed, it is the “greatest nation in history.”  Whenever someone questions this “fact”, Americans stay true to their ethnocentric nature, and become infuriated and defensive.  I quickly recognized this article to be one that would generate this kind of response, and my recognition immediately morphed to curiosity and enjoyment with the reading.

Instead of taking this article personally (quite easily, as I am not America-born), I realized that the arguments posed in this article could be applied to any country that may have this same opinion about itself.  Taking into consideration America’s defensive reaction to this article, let’s say that this article was not about the United States, but instead about China.  China claims that they are the greatest nation in the world.  Would the points that Jensen argues in his article remain true? Yes, it would still be true that “any claim to being the greatest nation is depraved and dangerous,” and yes, it is also true that saying that your country is the greatest nation “ignore[s] the complexity of societies and life within them.”  More likely than not, American’s would agree whole-heartedly with these assumptions.

Instead of jumping to the conclusion that Jensen is unpatriotic, it is essential that we understand that he is only criticizing the characteristics of this country, rather than the country itself.  Patriotism within the United States is very rarely subjected to criticism, as this act itself is unpatriotic.  However, it is in our best interest to deconstruct the problems within the American empire in order to better foreign relations and attitudes.  Very factually stated and unable to be argued, America comes “last place in the amount of foreign aid” it donates, “never com[ing] close” to the amount the U.N. decided it should allocate to this specific portion of it’s budget.  Is this unwillingness to share its wealth a characteristic of the “greatest nation in history?”  What does it mean that the United States’ military budget is so much greater than the budget for foreign policy?  What does this say to foreign nations?  Do you think this would generate a particularly unsettling view and therefore a dislike of the United States from these foreign nations?

In the later sections of the article, Jensen says, “it is crucial to scrap patriotism in today’s empire, the United States, where patriotism is not only a bad idea but literally a threat to the survival of the planet.”  Although the scale of issues may change, human nature tendencies are universal, and any country that claims to be the greatest is guaranteed a reaction from all other countries hoping to secure this title.  Just because we are citizens of this self-proclaimed “greatest” country doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t criticize this attitude and recognize the consequences associated with having this particular viewpoint.

Week 15: 3 Rhetorical Frameworks Initial Post

In this week’s article, “Citizens of the Empire”, Jensen discusses the three rhetorical frameworks regarding the United States and wartime that have been difficult to challenge and that Americans should be critically analyzing. The three rhetorical frameworks include viewing the United States as a superior nation, supporting the troops since they protect our nation and assuming that patriotism is regarded as positive. Jensen explains that any individual who challenged any of these rhetorical frameworks would appear crazy and un-American, however “all three claims must be challenged if there is to be progressive political change.” For this reason, throughout this article Jensen explains ways in which each rhetorical framework can be debated and the other side to each argument. When discussing America’s superiority, Jensen denies the claim of greatness by citing consequences that can result from such large egos of countries, such as “the nations that claim to be great are usually the ones that can enforce their greatness through coercion and violence.” Also, our lack of a universal definition of “greatness” makes it difficult for us to truly claim that America is superior. Especially after surveying United States history, Jensen concluded “the United States was founded on noble principles that it has advanced and, often at the same time, undermined.”

Jensen goes on to approach the support the troops rhetoric by refusing to answer the question regarding his stance. Although some people argue that our support of the troops should be separate from the war and unwavering, Jensen argues that supporting the troops directly supports the war since the two topics are so closely intertwined. The article explains that we can’t solely support the troops on their job description to defend our freedom, because America’s freedom has never been the true heart of the conflict of war. I believe that the American troops should always have our support because of the duty they are completing by serving our country and sacrificing so much, including risking their life. Jensen seemed to be very harsh when discussing supporting the troops and put too much emphasis on their connection to the motives and reasoning behind war that is the actions and decisions of the government.

As Jensen goes on to discuss the last rhetorical framework regarding patriotism, he explains his beliefs against it and even goes on to refer to it as the “dark side”. This article suggests “we should abandon patriotism and strive to become more fully developed human beings not with shallow allegiances to a nation but deep ties to humanity.” In this discuss on patriotism, it is also questioned what we should be loyal to…land, culture, leaders, policies, governmental structures, democratic ideals. The unclear definition of patriotism leaves many unclear of what or who to show their loyalty too, especially in recent times of war.

This week’s reading, “A Citizen’s Empire” was very interesting, although I don’t necessarily agree with everything it had to say. The three main ideas Jensen discusses are the U.S. is the greatest nation, one must support the troops, and patriotism is a positive. Jensen emphasizes that it is important to think critically about each of these ideas and make up your own mind about each of these ideas. Jensen then proceeded to critique each of these areas. This is where we get into the parts of the reading that I disagreed with.

Jensen argued that the ideology that the United States is the greatest nation is bad because it leads us to think that we as a nation are untouchable and cannot be stopped. While I understand his point of view, I think it is important that we feel we as Americans are a strong and great country. In my lifetime I have seen a lot of tragic events that have brought us together as a nation. On September 11^th, during the Boston Bombing, the Newton Shooting, the Aurora Shooting, the Columbine Shooting, and many more I have seen my country come together as one to support those in need. It is our sense of greatness that binds us together and allows us to come together in times of need. If we hated out country we wouldn’t come together in the way that we do. This also ties in with his argument of patriotism is a positive. Because we are patriotic and love our country we want to protect it and its citizens.

The argument that troubled me the most, however, was Jensen’s argument about supporting our troops. Many people today do not agree with why we are in Afghanistan, but whether or not you agree with why we are there I think it is very important to show our support and solidarity for all the men and women who are putting their lives on the line in the name of our country. These soldiers have friends and families and boyfriends and girlfriends just like the rest of us, but they choose to be away from them to serve in our military. I personally do not support the war, but I am 100 percent behind every one of the brave men and women serving in the armed forces because they have more courage than I can imagine. Like Becky said in class, I think supporting the troops means bringing them home and helping them make the transition back to living in society.