Coastal
Post Online
November,
2003
Deadly Symbols
By Guy Meyers
Many peace-loving, one-world seekers object
that refusing to honor or respect the symbols-flags, anthems, pledges, oaths,
etc. is going too "far." It is extremism.
This may, indeed be a form of extremism,
but is not extremism called for where we would like to eradicate every trace of
cancer in the body? Should we be
content to leave a small number of growing cancer cells in an afflicted organ
in the interest of moderation?
To end racial segregation in a community is it enough to legally require
equality of opportunity in employment, voting, housing, etc.? Should we continue to tolerate public
expressions of racial superiority and prejudice? Or is all prejudice-racial,
sexual, religious, etc. to be stamped out?
The very objection to desanctifying its symbols reveals
nationalism's region of greatest sensitivity.
Under these symbols lie its deepest roots, from which sprout all its
poisonous fruit.
Symbols
communicate emotions, not ideas, not intellectual messages. That is why any
attack upon, or glorification of, symbols stirs feelings of anger or
reverence.
We may argue
intellectually why world community with world law is preferable to the
sovereign nation-state system, but we communicate nothing whatsoever if there
are no listeners. Why should anyone listen who is content with things as they
are, with doing business as usual?
An attack on symbols, the emotion bearers, is an interruption of
business-as-usual. The anger and outcry
aroused draws attention to the issue, to the previously ignored message. As it
is debated it is considered, reconsidered, and re-evaluated. That is exactly
what is now required to deal with the deadly disease, Nationalism.
Only those who are afflicted with this
disease, who see the nation and its symbols as somehow more sacred than a city,
province, or other community, and for which human life must be sacrificed-only
these will be upset at the de-sanctifying, dis-honoring, desecrating of
national symbols.
While we may
sympathize with their discomfort, we see that it is the disease of nationalism,
inherited through tradition, that is the true cause. Equally upset were those
steeped in the tradition of white superiority when forced to deal with racial
integration.
An operation to
remove an infected organ or limb was once a painful procedure. Fortunately,
there have been developed anesthetics that prevent, or minimize the pain
involved.
We who would excise
nationalism from the body politic are simultaneously challenged to accomplish
this with a minimum of hurt feelings. We can and will make an effort to reach
out to our opponents with gestures of goodwill and friendship. We must see them
as fellow humans, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers, hurting from the
breaking of an addictive tradition.
We have in common our love and deep concern for our children-for all
children. Have we not at some time experienced the pleasure of holding a
precious infant boy or girl in our arms, watched with delight a toddler,
admired and encouraged a teenager, been proud of a young man or woman? Can any artifact, be it a flag or a ritual, or even our idea of a nation,
equal the feeling, the deep knowledge of the sanctity of human life?
As we recognize the sanctity of all human lives we can accept no excuse
to destroy some in order to uphold a nation. Our livelihoods, our harmless
traditions, our freedoms can best be preserved by the creation of a community
without national, racial, or religious divisions. To the establishment of such
a community, with its more inclusive symbols, let us turn our commitment and
loyalty.