Also called, "No, I am not a communist."

Also called, "No, I am not a table."

I've actually always enjoyed long, often needless discussions more than I should. Part of the reason is probably the fact that I've always been concerned in other people's opinions of me, for better or worse (and often times, a fairly useless thing to fret about, since you cannot change someone else's cognitive functions any more than you can change the laws of physics or mathematics). I also apologize, in advance, if this strikes anyone as being a long, pointless diatribe of the sorts that garner much hatred on FaceBook, MySpace, et cetera. I cannot deny that it isn't long and pointless (worth is in the value of the reader, as always), but it was not my intention to sound like "an upset 14-year-old girl".

But, for the potential discussion-related value, I thought I'd share, and examine, a discussion I had over DA that's already been made publicly viewable anyway, which ended with me being accused of treason. I use the word 'discussion' because of the neutral context. Now you may ask, "Why agonize on such a trivial manner?". Perhaps it is trivial, but as I will explain again later, I put great value on the importance of rational discussion. Since the point is not actually the other individual, but the discussion itself, I've added some minor degree of anonymity. The conversation is otherwise word-for-word.

(The piece in question was a comparison of two military uniforms--which, you may have figured out, is an unfortunate hobby of mine--belonging to different nations.)

===== DIALOGUE BEGINS =====

Myself:

Someone may have already pointed out, but I believe the collar tabs on the Soviet uniform have been swapped out/replaced by others.

Not entirely uncommon, given the age of things.

S*********L:

So what ?

Myself:

Just an observation. This happens a lot with...well, old stuff. Parts get torn off and replaced.

It's very easy to fix, if one was concerned about it.

S*********L:

And what can you tell about this ? [link*]

Myself:

I'm certainly familiar with the incident, but I'm not completely sure how it relates to the topic on hand?

It was a criminal act (though, I suppose, more specifically a war crime)? I mean, I think it's pretty mild, compared to say, forcing Poland (or any other nation) to abide by a different system of government and economy through occupational force, or stationing troops in that nation against its will for literally decades, or forcing it to abide in a mutual defense treaty against its interest. Compared to that, I think think this fairly...well, minor. Especially since countries wantonly executed POWs out of convenience or malice repeatedly through that conflict.

If you wanted to get really specific, this kind of uniform is an M/69 or an M/79, and wasn't used at the time. Really, I don't think it relates much to my comment.

S*********L:

It does relate - you love Soviet Army and communists, and my grandfather's brother died in Katyń from NKVD paws. The conclusion is obvious - you're supporting murderers of my grandfather's brother.

My American friends consider you as traitor and I agree with them.

===== DIALOGUE ENDS =====

*Link in question is to the Katyn Forrest Massacre ([link]), perpetrated by NKVD Forces of the Soviet Union against several thousand Poles, primarily of the Officer Corps of the Armed Forces of Poland, but also included intelligentsia and others.

Now, this got me thinking a bit--what qualifies one as a traitor? To begin, the other participant of this conversation probably incorrectly believed I was an American, an understandable mistake given my current residence. I am, as it happens, a Taiwanese national and citizen. Let's examine the word 'traitor' itself:

Traitor –noun
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Given my unfamiliarity with the other participant of this conversation, whom for inconvenience will be referred to as my accuser, it's probably not unreasonable to assume he is referring to the second definition, rather than the first. Now, the definition of treason (we'll use the American one, given the context) as set forth in Article III Section III of the U.S. Constitution is as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I am not capable of making war, for obvious reasons (I don't even own a firearm for personal defense). Am I adhering to U.S. enemies, giving them aid or comfort? Well, given my stance against the Second Gulf War, by an extreme definition I suppose it is possible, though I would be joining several million other Americans in this act (many of which, protesting in marches and anti-war rallies, are far more dedicated in the matter than me). And a charge of treason requires two witnesses to the same accusatory act, or a confession. I have not confessed to treason, nor are there two witnesses (there is, perhaps, one?).

In either case, given my residence within the United States, and my registered habitation here, I credit the U.S. government as sufficiently competent to arrest me if I were accused of treason.

Moving on, in the subject of my homeland, remaining outside the nation--and thus, not being immediately eligible for mobilization--is not treason, nor is it a criminal act of lesser importance. Nor is returning to vote in an election (actually, this is encourage, and by some accounts a legal, if not moral, obligation). There is also the implications of political stances, which I will return to later in this. Actually, the most immediate mentioning of treason in the constitution of the Republic of China is in Article 52:

The President shall not, without having been recalled, or having been relieved of his functions, be liable to criminal prosecution unless he is charged with having committed an act of rebellion or treason.

Now, taking this in a non-literal manner, I am not actually concerned that I may have committed treason. A more 'common-sense' observation is that my accuser has not actually discussed the complex matter (my suspected political inclination?) with an American nationals, but instead has formulated an opinion based on observations. Furthermore, this opinion probably is not grounded in concrete legal worth that would hold up in a U.S. open court.

This is more likely an impassioned declaration of a general political belief in relation to a perceived political inclination on my part, caused by, among other things, my accuser's personal history, if his statement is to be held as honest (which I have no reason to disbelieve, nor believe, given my unfamiliarity with him, and indeed, the very nature of anonymity over the internet). I say this is an impassioned, and thus, non-typical, declaration, because I've had a perfectly reasonable conversation with the same individual before, which can be found in its entirety here: [link]

===== DIALOGUE BEGINS =====

S*********L:

I guess you sing "Katyusha"... I have the lyrics in my gallery.

Myself:

Alas...I prefer something more down-to-earth...my rendition of "Gimme All Your Lovin'", as sung by the Leningrad Cowboys and Red Army Choir (though it's not as impressive with only one person).

S*********L:

Have you heard about the Alexandrov Choir ?

Myself:

Of course, but I know them by the less-formal name, the Red Army Music and Dance Ensemble, i.e. the Red Army Choir. I've got them listed as my favorite band, after all...

Their renditions of "Oh Canada", "O Fortuna", and "Stairway to Heaven" are fantastic!

===== DIALOGUE ENDS =====

Now, I believe the proceeding, shorter discussion is a more accurate reflection of my accusers behavior, thus, I believe my accuser is not formally an accuser, but simply someone with an impassioned opinion, from which he is fully entitled to, as anyone is, that is based on a somewhat incorrect perception of me. When I came to DeviantArt, I made a point of addressing the possible political ramifications of some of my photos. They are, and remain, done in humor, in jest, with no intention to offend whatsoever, and out of whimsy and a personal interest. I also include photographs of people wearing uniforms of multiple nations, including the United States, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere. Those exist in precisely the same context. I do not think I 'love', in a strict sense' any of these nations, nor the Soviet Union. I cannot say in complete honesty I 'love' my nation of origin, of which I do have some obligation towards, having been born there, raised there, enjoyed the medical service of, et cetera.

Addressing the heart of the manner, I do not believe myself to be a communist--as in, one who subscribes to the political philosophy of Marxist-Leninism, or one of the newer philosophies descended from that. Being a communist is not an act of treason in the United States, nor the Republic of China, though, in the past, being a communist in the U.S. did mean arrest as an member of an illegal (but not treasonous, in a legal context) organization, and similarly, in Taiwan, execution as being a member of an illegal (but again, not specifically treasonous) anti-Kuomingtang political assembly of either a violent or nonviolent nature, usually connected with the Taiwanese Peasants' Union, the Alliance of Taiwanese Workers, or prior to 1930, the Japanese Communist Party's Taiwan National Branch. If I were a communist, I would personally say that I would make a poor Marxist-Leninist, primarily due to my material obsession, my considerable political apathy, my adherence to nonviolence, and finally, my petite-bourgeois background. Similarly, while I (and indeed, no-one) am in any position to demand that people subscribe to my suspect politics (an accused communist), my actual politics ("Liberal as the day is long" is not entirely inaccurate, but that is neither here nor there), or any school of political thought, I do belief, and ask, that they respect eachother's own political inclinations and national identity, or at the very least, refrain from charging eachother with treason or other crimes.

In short, making this points, I argue that my impassioned, but not necessarily malicious, accuser is mistake about his charges. I wished to address them in person, and I thank anyone who actually read this entire text to its end for allowing me to plead my case, which I do with no little sense of pride, I will admit. I consider this a matter of importance because, without reasonable dialogue, I believe human society cannot sustain itself in any medium for any reasonable time. Rational discussion, negative or positive, is everything. I marked this as 'important', in addition to 'long', not because I'm afraid of being carted off to jail, but because I think it's important that people keep talking, keep discussing, and resolve their issues rationally and, if possible, politely. Right now, in the United States, it is far too easy to simply declare one's opponent a "communist", a "fascist", a "nazi", "Adolf Hitler", "left-wing loon", "right-wing loon", "table", et cetera. While I may have taken a humorous air with this, let me be clear: this progression of dialogue, in the United States and abroad, disturbs me. And if I can open a single eye to this--whether through my personal incident, or anything else--than it was worth it.

If this in any way violates DeviantArt's terms of usage, or the generally-agreed upon code of conduct in this community, I apologize and acknowledge my ignorance on that matter, but I felt this was necessary.

Because, as it were, I could not do otherwise. My accuser has blocked me. As always, I welcome any responses on the matter, or even other matters.