Over the last few years, we Americans have become used to a strange new kind of language used to describe ourselves and our nation. One term in this new language is the word homeland. I want you to think back now: Did you ever hear anyone refer to the United States of America as "the Homeland" before George W. Bush took office? I never did. Yet, now we hear that term all the time.What does it mean?
A homeland is an ancestral piece of turf claimed by a tribe or an ethnic nation. The Jewish homeland is in Palestine, in the Middle East, for example.
What is the Homeland in Homeland Security, then? Where is that mythical American Homeland everyone keeps talking about?
It doesn't exist, except for in our minds. Nonetheless, the term "Homeland" is a psychologically useful term, because it persuades American citizens, who used to identify themselves in terms of the values of liberty, equality, and justice formalized in the Constitution of the United States, to regard themselves in terms of an ethnic, nationalist identity. Our freedom, and our Constitution suddenly become a lot less important than they used to be, when people start talking about protecting "the Homeland".
The truth is that the Department of Homeland Security is a Department of paranoia. Yes, there are real terrorist threats, but they are minor in comparison to other threats to the well-being of the United States. The anti-terrorist reaction is dramatically out-of-proportion to the real terrorist threat.
In response to the idea of the Department of Homeland Security, people have started talking about the dark, shadowy threat implicit in Homeland psychology. People have begun to talk about the concept of the Department of Homeland Insecurity, a satirical, yet more accurate vision of what all this Homeland nonsense really means.
There are politicians and economic elites that benefit from our fear. Social and religious groups that want to impose their harsh, outdated values on everyone else value as well. They all belong, without even knowing it, to the Department of Homeland Insecurity.
Here are some places online that are dealing with the Department of Homeland Insecurity:
- Department of Homeland Insecurity News on Irregular Times
- Department of Homeland Insecurity lens on Squidoo
- Department of Homeland Insecurity Gear on CafePress
- Department of Homeland Insecurity Idiocy Level Firefox plugin
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 39
your historical point is very well taken. Yes, the "Heimat" of the "Deutsches Volk" was used to justify many crimes in the time of Hitler. And the "homeland" of the american people can be sold in the same way. The Invasion of Iraq and the torture of prisoners would have been a tougher sell without this kind of loaded language.
You're emphasizing the USA as a birthright, an inheritance, in nationalist terms. You impugn the patriotism of people who disagree with you and the nation's leaders. Pretty typical of the nationalism which the "Homeland" isa associated with.
You say, "I am a fascist for wanting the world to know that I will defend this country as my homeland, with that extra sense of desperation, connection, and attachment, I will gladly take up that label, for what is facism to you seems incredibly normal to me."
Those are indeed the consequences of allowing a "sense of nation" to overrule a love of liberty.
"Homeland" is defined as "One's native land" (check, which also means illegal aliens should be kept out of my homeland). Alternatively, "homeland" is defined as, "A state, region, or territory that is closely identified with a particular people or ethnic group" (check, we are Americans and I think that thinking of America as a homeland can help patriotism, which, like it or not, is important to this country)
For me, it's the freedom, not the land, that's important. That's why I object to the term "Homeland". I am loyal to freedom, not to the nation.
This kind of argument involving semantics has been happening in every "homeland" for millenia. Idealist zealots (usually a minority) twist and contort their words and interpretations of others' words to come up with one conspiracy theory or another, just as you are doing here. It was arguments and "logic" such as this that led to the Crusades, WWII, 9/11, and most other conflicts throughout history.
Instead of pointing out the flaws of our nation and it's leaders and leaving it at that, perhaps you could offer some suggestions on possible solutions? It's one thing to whine and complain that you don't like something/someone, but it takes real character to actively strive for a solution.
At any rate, I will agree that the Department of Defense should also handle what the Department of (In)Security supposedly does.
No more spying on American citizens.
No more power for imprisonment without trial.
Restore habeas corpus.
Fair trials for all people accused of crimes.
Repeal the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act.
An idealist zealot? I'm proposing that we follow the Constitution instead of following fear.
I say that Osama Bin Laden loves the way that the current US government has made him into a super villain, when in fact he's just a criminal.
George W. Bush has not rid the world of terrorism. His wars have made Al Quaida stronger than before.
The terrorists wanted us to respond to the attacks by destroying our way of life. I say we shouldn't fall into that trap.
I say that the clear reality is that most of us in the USA are at practically no risk of terrorism at all.
I couldn't agree with the article and most of comments more. The "Court of Bush" has used the horrible event of 9/11 to elevate themselves to the protectors of the realm or homeland. Their personal quest has been to make us feel so insecure that we blind ourselves to the erosion of our civil rights in the name of security.
Osama Bin Laden would have long ago been captured or killed, but his demonized image is more valuable to the people in power.
Namaste, Wayne
Our boarders are wide open
Illegal immigrants are being hired by major corporations to do work, like the rebuilding and cleaning up of New Orleans. That makes me feel safe.
This term has been used as a political tool and as a sedative to dumb us down.
What I want to see is action that has a long term solution to our security and the fight against Al Quaida. Why could they never find the perpetrators of the anthrax murders if we are so secure?
Wayne, if you read the Constitution, you'll see nothing of the sort of what you claim. Consider the Oath of Office. In it, the President swears to uphold and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic - not to protect the land.
Rich, there have been terrorists for generations. We didn't need to sacrifice our liberty to protect ourselves before, and we don't need to do it now.
And, I certainly have given a specific idea of what I would like to be done. You just don't like it.
What do you want? Do you want me to start speaking in subsection A, line 2, language?
You just don't like what I have to say. That's different from me not getting specific. Not going to play the game, Rich.
Seems to me congress clamped down on the presidency after your boy nixon resigned in disgrace , though he probably was "innocent".