To love our country, our country ought to be lovely
By Jennie S. Bev
I once attended Robert “Hollywood Guru” McKee’s screenwriting class in downtown San Francisco. During the analysis session Casablanca (starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid) was played on the projection screen.
I was taken to Casablanca in the 1940s, but the movie was in fact shot in a studio, Van Nuys airport and Rick’s Cafe, which belonged to Rick Blaine played by Bogart.
In one of the first few scenes, McKee emphasized the importance of viewing films critically. This Oscar-winning film is full of symbols, hence the notion of films as symbolism in action. And one of the most remarkable symbols was the upside-down lamp shade. I was astonished as I had not paid attention to that small detail until he mentioned it.
From the beginning, the skillful cinematographer Arthur Edeson (who was also nominated for an Oscar) wished to convey a strong message: Casablanca was an upside-down society at that time. Of course, this was seen through the eyes of a western filmmaker, whose values and lifestyle were likely to be opposite to that which he was portraying.
Today, I see the world the way I analyze films, only the scenes are alive and the actors and actresses are real people. Scenes, plot, and chapters will eventually create internal and external structures intertwined in a manner which may or may not construct an enjoyable film.
This year, Indonesia is celebrating its 63rd anniversary of independence — a big number for a populous country. If Indonesia were a person, he or she would be a grandparent with much wisdom to share with his or her grandchildren. And it is pertinent to recall John F. “Camelot” Kennedy’s classic inauguration speech made Jan. 20, 1961, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country”.
Very romantic. Now let’s be realistic. It is now more relevant than ever, to reflect on what Indonesia has become after 63 years of independence. Are we going somewhere? Anywhere? Are we all completely free in this state of “independence”?
To answer such questions, Edmund Burke suggests: “To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely”. While this may seem to contradict Kennedy’s wise words, Burke makes a lot of sense. A country, after all, is no more than a social contract among individuals residing in a particular region and as Benedict Anderson attested, nationality is an imagined community. Remove these concepts, what do we get? Random crowds in some accidental regions.
Still, we have unconditional love for our country, just like our love for our parents and children. Good or bad, they are our family. Sometimes we encounter individuals who are very hard to love, but we still love them anyway. We have no other choice but to love them, as part of our predetermined destiny. Just like this old adage, “right or wrong, it is my country”.
This kind of love is the foundation for layers of other types of love — earned and reflective ones. Both must exist for a complete circle to materialize.
Blind love for a country is as venomous as it is to spoil a child. Patriotism should be based on reflective actions, so the ideal and the reality are aligned with each other, as Dinesh D’Souza elucidated in What’s So Great about America. Thus, pride and nationalism come with substance, not merely empty rhetoric.
An ideal love for a country is because it is mine and because it is also lovely. That black-and-white movie titled Casablanca speaks volumes on choosing between love and virtue. In the end, virtue wins. The same also rings true with our love for our country. Is love what it takes to move forward and carry Indonesia to a higher ground? Or virtue? Or both?
I believe in the power of virtue and the mother of all virtues is compassion. If we love Indonesia, there is one single thing we can do to express and internalize it within our soul — to show compassion to our fellow countrymen and women, whoever they are, regardless of their differences — to treat others just like we treat ourselves. It is that simple.
The greatest country, after all, is one that respects and protects minorities. The opposite of compassion should not be used as the basis for policy making, since it would breed evil offspring and create more violence, chaos, and anarchy. Policy makers must be aware of such consequences and should emphasize virtuous politics with substance.
In my simplistic and idealistic mind, a philosopher-ruler like Marcus Aurelius would be ideal. He once said, “Live not as though there were a thousand years ahead of you. Fate is at your elbow; make yourself good while life and power are still yours”. Simple advice that still rings true today.
Until Indonesia is free from persecuting its minorities, I can only love Indonesia because it is mine. I will reserve my other love for loveliness — after all minorities can live and breathe without bending. Till then.
_____
The writer is an author and columnist based in Northern California. This article was published by the Jakarta Post with the title of Contemplating our own Independence Day
I have a confession to make:I guess I saw “Casablanca” three or four times and yet I didn’t notice the upside down lamp shade. Mr McKee unknowingly, with you as an intermediary, dealt a blow to my ego.
Now to topic.
The distinction you make between loving your country because it’s yours and because it’s lovely, is interesting. This again is a critical yet subtle article. And - that’s where I get the courage to comment on it - it transcends the occasion: the 17the of august. Your article applies to manifestations of nationalism or patriotism in general. Especially the “lovely part” and in that category this line “The greatest country, after all, is one that respects and protects minorities”, caught my eye.
I agree of course. But I wonder whether it is correct to let state, the regime on one side and country on the other, converge. Yes, the state, the authorities, the state of law- all that is meant to protect it’s citizens. That includes minorities - ethnic, religious, cultural. socio-economic. But, if a country lacks a satisfactory government, should that harm one’s, nationalism, one’s patriotism, one’s love for the country?
I doubt that. At least in a democracy there is the possibility to try and vote the government out of office. It’s worse of course if it isn’t the state, but the predominant culture in the country that is hostile to minorities. One can try to change that also, but to bring that about it will not take an election, but several generations.
Yet, in as far as the government and the institutions do their job properly, one can live with the shortcomings of the culture. I’m afraid almost all countries have to deal with this kind of cultural traits that can cause discrimination against minorities. Neither Europe nor America are exemptions to the rule. In the US you better not belong to the poor black minoritie, living in Europe you have a tough time if you are of North African descent.
As for Indonesia, there has been horrible outbursts against minorities in recent history - against ( presumed) communists and Chinese-Indonesians for instance. Triggered, at least not prevented, by the authorities but driven by cultural characteristics.
Nevertheless, I guess some substantial progress have been made since. There is - be it still unfinished - some institutional framework now which can help to establish a state that can effectively protect it’s citizens - against the state itself, against dangerous cultural traits. And, sometimes hesitantly I admit, is prepared to do so.
So, one may say the glass is half empty, but one may as well say the glass is half full.
Colson,
I guess you should watch Casablanca again to prove the upside-down lamp shade.
Several points I’d like to make:
1. How I write: Glass-half empty, yup, that’s whenever I write “activism” pieces, like this one. I’m half-full in person, which you can read from my personal journals.
2. Why I wrote this piece: A country consists of multiple elements and we can’t discount the fact that culture and the mentality of the majority directly influence how a regime or a government acts/reacts. It is imperative for the majority who are likely to be silent in most circumstances (no matter how bad) to realize that they have the power to make changes, no matter how subtle.
You said, “I’m afraid almost all countries have to deal with this kind of cultural traits that can cause discrimination against minorities. Neither Europe nor America are exemptions to the rule. In the US you better not belong to the poor black minoritie, living in Europe you have a tough time if you are of North African descent.”
Apparently both of us use different frameworks. It seems from your writing that you didn’t distinguish between discrimination and persecution. Discriminatory actions may become the basis of persecutions but persecutions are far more severe than discriminations.
Persecution consists of the so-called “well-founded fear” for the well-being of one’s life. Not in discrminations. Perhaps our egos will be badly burned by being discrminated, but most likely we can still do our normal activities afterwards.
A minority is being persecuted whenever the regime or the so-called “representative of the majority” may act violently or even kill under an ideological reason whenever they feel “offended.” A good example is the current Ahmadis. While the government doesn’t disband Ahmadiyah, the so-called “representative of the majority” who are likely to be minority extremists themselves, might take matters to their own hands for things they don’t “approve.” We have heard chants of homicidal urges from them, haven’t we?
And in my activist’s mind, it is imperative for the majority, who are tolerant-peaceful-yet-silent, to act before it is too late.
The day when compassion dies will be the saddest day of eternity.
Thanks Colson for your visit and comments, as always.