OK, I gave myself two weeks, but I just can't resist jumping into this one! And I agree with a significant portion of what Kakki states here.
Kakki wrote, in response to Randy Relayer: "While I'm sure there may be some who would wish they didn't have to hear some of the dissent, I would also bet everything that the people who you would characterize as "extreme patriots" would be the same ones fighting the hardest to defend and secure your right to dissent. I also find it strange that you characterize the overwhelming sense of unity that Americans have felt since Sept. 11th as "extreme patriotism" like it is some "movement" that people consciously decided to create sole for the purpose of making dissenters feel uncomfortable or to "silence" the views of dissenters. It troubles me that perhaps some people can't just look at American people coming together in a time of crisis as simply hearts and souls showing solidarity with each other. To me, it is really more about hearts and spirits feeling protective and supportive of each other than "nationalism" or some kind of "political" statement." Me now: not at all surprisingly, considering where I'm posting this, I can see this situation from both sides now! One one hand, I agree with Kakki that the displays of patriotism and patriotic statements do not constitute in any way a "movement" for the purpose of stifling dissent. And I agree that they sprang into being on the spot, amidst great grief, in a moment of national crisis, and at least in part of a way for Americans to provide much-needed support to one one another, as well as for their country. I experienced this impromptu national reaction in an extremely personal way. Two days after the attacks I happened to be on the road traveling halfway across the Midwest for a long-planned family event, after disregarding the urgent pleas of some family members not to chance it. "You don't know what will happen next," they reasoned; "there are likely to be incidents of gas-gouging and explosions of road rage." What did I find instead? "God Bless America" and "United We Stand" on every toll both with an electronic sign that I passed through on my 600-mile journey. People already flying flags and wearing flag pins. Smiles. Tears. And, rather than road rage, I found my fellow travelers to be unfailingly polite, gentler, and much more accommodating than on any similar trip that I had ever made in the past. We had just been through the ringer and back, and we were helping each other through that experience together. It didn't matter that we were total strangers. We were Americans, and we were, indeed, united. So I've experienced that side. And yet, in all honesty, I must also say that, in the first several weeks after the attack, when opinion polls were running at 90% in favor of both President Bush and his planned actions, I did NOT feel completely secure in sharing certain opinions of mine that differed strongly from those of the clear majority. I personally know others who felt much the same way. I can't put my finger on why. We didn't fear violence--nothing like that, thank God. However, we certainly didn't feel that our views would be welcomed or listened to. So, due to wanting to avoid a fight in a particularly stressful time, and out of not a small amount of deference for the unique moment in national history in which we all found ourselves, many of us simply did not voice them. Kakki, you have spoken many times about your opposition to "groupthink," and I commend you for that. But "groupthink" can arise out of many different sources, and can spring up intentionally, or not. My fear here is that, while I certainly DON'T believe that stifling dissent was at all intended, the stress of the times and the sheer strength of the majority view may sometimes have led to something very much like that, as an unanticipated byproduct of the events and our reactions to them. Personally, I've experienced or heard about the squelching or self-censoring of views perceived by some as "unpatriotic" with far, far greater regularity than I have examples of removing flags or symbols from public institutions, or the silencing of "patriotic" speech. Of course, your mileage may vary. I understand why it happened. These are extraordinary times. But I do think and hope we can agree that any time the majority (or the strong) silences the voice of the minority (or the weak), except when questions of national security are implicated, that that is not what this country is in any way about. And I hope that minority views on either "side" continue to be expressed, in universities, in cities like mine, and on this list. In solidarity and lemon bread, Mary P.
