It would be a mistake to portray Maines as a leftist based on the following quote:
"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism; Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country... I don't see why people care about patriotism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Maines
In the above statement, Maines is clearly rejecting nationalism as an ideology.
Just think for a moment:
International politics is about conflicts of interests between the myriad of countries in which humans find themselves divided as well as the temporary alliances made by these countries to protect their mutual interests.
Still following me? Good.
Now, if Maines rejects the existence of all nation-states as a principle she cannot be categorised as a right winger or a leftist (at least as far as international politics is concerned).
In order to be placed in any part of the political spectrum (right/left), as far as relations between nation-states are concerned, you have to accept the basic tenet of nationalism:
It is OK for humans to divide mankind in different ethnic/political groups and fight for the interests of its own group when it clashes with other groups’ interests.
This is the fundamental prerequisite one has to fulfill in order to occupy a place on the political spectrum.
Without accepting it you cannot be placed anywhere in the political spectrum, because you lie outside of it.
How could I have a rightist or leftist opinion on the Vietnam War if I don’t even think the parties involved have a right to exist let alone fight to begin with?
If a military conflict arises between, let’s say, the US and Iran, you cannot take sides, if you don’t think these two tribes should exist in the first place.
Neutral comments like the one below would be OK:
“What do I think about the war? I think humans desperately need to grow up and overcome all this insane tribalism that since the advent of the nuclear age threatens not only human lives anymore but our entire civilization and planet.”
It seems to me Maines considers the US to be nothing more than a general geographic location of the place she was born.
And I have to admit that Maines is right from a philosophical point of view.
I think nationalism is a necessary evil. At this moment in the cultural evolution of our species, humans can’t reach a consensus on the laws that should rule the ideal society.
As long as humans in Sweden and humans in Saudi Arabia disagree on the kind of society they wish to live in (secular or fundamentalist), mankind will still have to be divided by national boundaries.
But a necessary evil is still an evil.
Nationalism is based on the same sense of aggressive animal territorialism we can witness in the behaviour of beasts like a pride of lions or a group of chimpanzees patroling, marking and fighting for their territories in the wild.
The sooner humans put to rest these prehistoric trait that still plagues modern human societies the better.
This is one of the reasons I use the expression super patriotic
“insert any nationality here” clown so enthusiastically. I think of nationalism as a spoiled child, if left unrestrained, leads any individual to advocate nuclear genocide of millions of innocent people as we can witness on this board itself on a daily basis.
But Maines should be aware of the following:
The speech she made in London criticising the US/Iraq war in 2003 is hardly compatible with the internationalist belief I quoted above.
I would advice Maines to avoid making
partisan comments about any tribal conflict,
if she wants to remain coherent with her own rejection of nationalism.
In the end she sounds a bit confused and contradictory, making highly partisan comments on tribal conflicts and rejecting these same tribes at the same time.
But let’s not be so hard on the poor young lady, people. Let’s not demmand full ideological coherence from her.
Let’s keep in mind she’s a singer, not a P.H.D. in Sociology : )
