Us, or U.S.?

Column by Paul Hein.

Exclusive to STR

I was watching a television program recently dealing with the events leading up to World War II, but primarily concerned with the attacks by Japan upon China, and the presidential order establishing the American Volunteer Force to provide American pilots and aircraft to fight for the Chinese. The commentator remarked, “The U.S. realized that it could not maintain its neutrality indefinitely.” No emphasis was put upon this comment, and it almost slipped by--almost, but not quite.

In the first place, what is neutral about providing weapons and soldiers to kill the Japanese for the benefit of the Chinese? (Today we would assist the Japanese in killing Chinese!) At the same time, our rulers were sending military supplies to the English, to help them kill Germans. A strange sort of neutrality! But more remarkable was the bland assertion that the “U.S.” was doing this. Was Wisconsin doing it? Nebraska? Louisiana? Oregon? Indeed, were the residents of the various states even consulted about it? The program made it obvious that the “U.S.” fully intended to enter the war, provided a suitable justification could be provided. Such a decision immediately put the lives of many Americans at risk, and subjected the others to the rigors of wartime life, including the deaths of loved ones. Again, who was the “U.S.” that was making this decision? Missouri? Nevada? Idaho? Vermont? Was it the people of the various states? Was it even the rulers of those artificially circumscribed areas? Of course not.

The decision to plunge Americans into war was taken by a relative handful of people, whose motives may, or may not, have coincided with those of the people they “represented.” But they never referred to themselves as individuals, but rather, as the “United States.” How grandiose!

It’s no different today. How often have you heard TV anchors refer to a certain action of the U.S., or a certain policy of the U.S., or even opinion that the U.S. has about this or that? It happens so often that we have become accustomed to it, and fail to realize what we’ve heard. One simple example: you might very well hear something like this in the near future: “The United States today has begun its invasion of Iran.” What’s remarkable about that statement is its grammar, totally aside from its meaning, which should make anyone cringe. For if the invasion was really begun by the United States, the statement would be: “The United States today have begun their invasion of Iran.” Now THAT would get your attention, wouldn’t it? If the United States is a single entity, why is the map of American riddled with boundary lines? Can anyone still take seriously the idea of “sovereign” states, when a coterie of individuals in Washington D.C. can make those states responsible for federal debts, or place their residents in harm’s way?

If you’re filling out the paperwork required of an American traveling abroad, you will be asked for your citizenship, and you will indicate that you are a citizen of the United States. All of them? That’s nearly as specific as saying you are a citizen of the Northern Hemisphere.

In general, people have a warm and affectionate regard for the place of their birth. Rulers are aware of this, and have succeeded in capitalizing upon it. So they do not refer to themselves as rulers of Washington D.C., for example, but as leaders of the United States, or even—gosh—the free world! A compliant press will, without any sign of embarrassment, even refer to them that way. But they don’t lead, which means they don’t point the way and suggest we follow it, but they rule, which means they tell us where to go and what they will inflict upon us if we don’t. Very few of them were elected by a majority of the people in their particular district or state, and thus the claim that they represent the people is absurd. And even if they did, when was the last time the people were asked for their advice regarding the matters upon which they vote? Yet they refer to themselves as the “United States,” or a state, or even a town; never as a group of individuals expressing their wishes as “law,” and demanding our respect.

The tragedy is not that a small group of men have given themselves an authority which does not exist, and based upon this self-bestowed power, make decisions which affect our lives in countless ways, for their own benefit, or that or their cronies. The tragedy is that we allow them to do it. Shame on US!