Printable View
Loyalty, especially to my country, is something pretty important to me. Reading up on the American Revolution has caused me to ask myself a pretty unsettling question, that I'll now pose to you lot.
Do you believe that as you are now, you would be able to support a rebellion against a country you have sworn citizenship to? Please provide your reasoning along with the response.
I might go for open rebellion in the case of severe human rights violations and a breakdown of any sort of democratic channels to right the situation. I'm not sure if I'd side with secession, though. Imagining myself as a British subject in a British colony, I don't think I'd feel morally comfortable with trying to "liberate" the colonies. From the perspective of an oppressed native population being conquered by an outside force, I'd say all bets would be off, though. My loyalty would be to my own nation, not the rule imposed from outside.
I'd definitely prefer rebellion to overthrow or reform a corrupt government over rebellion to secede, though. One case I can see as an extension of loyalty (the desire to fix a beloved nation), while the second is a change of loyalty (to the newly created nation).
It would be hard for me, for sure. Loyalty is something I feel very strongly about, and I'm fairly patriotic when it comes to the things the US is supposed to stand for. I'd like to think given a situation such as Zuul describes, where the democratic process breaks down, that I would stand with a rebellion instead of the status quo.
Without question, I would be able to support a violent rebellion against my own country if the situation here came to the point where tyranny reigned and a peaceful solution wasn't in the offing.
There's a certain teleological notion that I think some Americans have about rebellion and secession, you couldn't possibly violate the sanctity of the United States, being as it is a perfect union or something. It comes up in every thread about the US breaking up I've read on the SDMB for example. I think it's a testament to the resiliance and positivity of many citizens of that country that people can't seem to readily imagine a situation where one or more states might have such a (legitimate) grievance with the central government that rebellion/secession would be their only remaining course of action.
Nationality identity, loyalty are such difficult matters. Most people are only loyal in any real sense to their immediate family. Beyond that loyalty is a negotiated thing at every step I imagine. Insofar as national loyality really matters outside of times of war, I'm not sure. All over the world migrants fly the flag of their original country and not the country they currently live in. What country are they loyal to? What does it matter?
Off the top of my head, a member of the reconstituted Iraqi and Afghan armies may consider themself loyal to their country, while others of their countryfolk may think of them as traitors.
Irish migrants to Britain are sometimes asked when they come home (by Irish Republicans generally), what country would they fight for if Britain and Ireland went to war. It's a preposterous question, it does touch on the complexity of loyalty when you're raised in one nation and make a life for yourself in another.
I have a quiet but fierce loyalty to the United States. I love my country, for all its many faults, and without casting any aspersions on any other country, consider it to be one of the best - in terms of freedom, opportunity, governance and ideals - in all of human history. More to the point, I have twice, as a lawyer and as a magistrate, sworn oaths to preserve, protect and defend the constitutions of the U.S. and of the State of Ohio. I take those oaths very seriously. I almost cannot imagine things getting so bad that rebellion against, or secession from, the republic would be morally defensible. Voting, nonviolent protesting, civil disobedience and advocating for reform would always be my very-much-preferred options.
The UK doesn't have any citizenship to speak of, but it has a history that more than makes up for it.
Could I support an armed insurrection against this country, very unlikely, but at that point it would not be Britain anymore. TBH I think the ongoing monarchy throughout the ages, despite all its problems, has helped and provided at least something that people can identify with.
This country is supposedly democratic so it would be far more preferable to exercise those options before anyting else.
Some very good points from everyone here. I am a US Navy veteran. I love my country. I would defend it again in a second if needed. Still, if our democracy was threatened from within (which I find hard to believe, but is possible), I'd side with rebellion of some form. I don't believe that violence is ever a good answer to any problem, but there have been times in our own country's history when it's been necessary. My grandfather used to say, "My country, love it or leave it." If you love your country and you believe it's doing something wrong/heading in the wrong direction, then you should do something about it -- within reason, of course.
I think the trick is knowing when the Constitution itself is under serious threat.Quote:
Originally posted by Elendil's Heir
What started this line of thought was doing more research into the Loyalist side during the American Revolution. I found it hard to disagree with their reasoning for staying loyal to the British Monarchy despite my admiration for the Founding Fathers. Lots of the initial revolutionaries were little more than opportunists, while individual states couldn't get their acts together at all. Hence the eventual founding of the Federal Government. Additionally, many of the reasons listed for the revolution weren't really that bad and agitated by the Sons of Liberty or other groups via word of mouth. In a society with a low literacy rate, word of mouth matters more than written proclamations.
I'm not saying that I'm against what happened, just that reality isn't as clear cut as school made it out to be.
I think I would have actively sided with the rebels. They were not really treated as British Citizens and at the time, the remote governing did not make much sense.
I can, even as a vet imagine a nightmare scenario where I would fight against the US, but first the Constitution would have to have been suspended or subverted pretty badly. Basically if the Theocrats take control I will move out or fight back. Not sure which. I cannot see a military dictatorship taking power like many Central and South American countries but I can see a Fundy movement somehow seizing power, though probably only for a brief time. Unlikely but I can see it.
Just OOC, when did Americans actually start thinking of themselves as Americans and not settlers of the New World?
When did their loyalty switch from one to the other?
Just OOC, when did Americans actually start thinking of themselves as Americans and not settlers of the New World?
When did their loyalty switch from one to the other?
From around the time of the French and Indian War, when Ben Franklin and others advised closer ties between the colonies, all the way through the outbreak of the Revolution, I'd say.
Look around. For over a century, starting with Teddy Roosevelt, the U. S. government has been doing things on a much wider scale that are prohibited by the Constitution. He was the first progressive President and paved the way for people like Wilson, FDR, LBJ et al. to really start putting us into the debt hole that we are in now.Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahfeena