Those labeled as “traitors” have often been heroic, while those who have been the most treasonous to the American people have frequently escaped judgment
Matthew McKenna
There are a set of words in the American version of the English language, unique for their perceived mutually exclusive meanings. I am referring to the words “hero,” “patriot,” “traitor,” and “villain.” In traditional narratives of American history, the former two words are paired together in opposition to the latter two linked words. However, does this categorization make sense? Does being a traitor to the United States preclude one from being an American hero? Is the word used in a myopic fashion that identifies some behaviors as traitorous while excusing those who perpetrate far greater transgressions against the country? Is being a traitor to the United States weighted differently than being a traitor to some other allegedly evil regime? Is the betrayal of the US government tantamount to betrayal of the nation’s citizens? The answers to these questions remain obscure because we do not have a conception of patriotism, and conversely a conception of treason, that clearly delineates between a loyalty to one’s government and a loyalty to one’s compatriots and humanity at large.
A Bit of Caution is Warranted
There has been a lot of talk about treason lately in the context of monuments being desecrated and torn down. While the general sentiment expressed through tearing down monuments that are themselves symbols of oppression and white supremacy is a noble one, there is a problematic argument being put forth as well. The statues erected, the names of cities, and the faces on currency, are all a reflection of the values that a nation is collectively expressing. The reason to oppose idolization of the leaders of the Confederate States of America is not different from the reason one should avoid veneration of Andrew Jackson, and reject his face on the twenty dollar bill. They are symbols of oppression, slavery, racism, genocide, and ethnic cleansing; actions that need to be rejected wholesale, and not validated with commemoration. Yet, a common justification for the opposition to memorializing Confederate figures, is that by honoring these men, we are worshipping men who were traitors to the United States. However, I would caution that being treasonous to the United States, has historically been a quality often worthy of praise. It is an attribute that has been personified by Americans who held morality above the rigid construction of loyalty to one’s government. This is a quality that was never attained by the defenders of the Confederacy, as their version of morality involved the ownership of people. An honest evaluation of the United States would reveal that treason itself has a heroic history, without any need to heap praise on the elites of the Southern apartheid. An uncomfortable truth that Americans at large are unwilling to grapple with, is that at many points in the last 244 years, it has been an act of valor to betray one’s oath of loyalty to the United States. As with many words, the term treason is also brandished as a weapon, utilized against those without power, while definitionally treasonous and more harmful behavior to the American citizenry by the powerful goes unlabeled and unchecked.
Only American Traitors are Bad!
Loyalty to one’s country is a trait that has been erroneously made to be synonymous with morality. The problem exists with its broad application. One can have loyalty to their family, their values, and the arbitrary borders in which they inhabit. The issue with the word stems from the fact that many times individuals will find these versions of loyalty in tension or in direct opposition with one another. When loyalty to one’s country is in conflict with loyalty to one’s values and one’s own morality or interests, where should they side? Our answer for other people’s has often been clear. To betray one’s country when the government of said state is deemed to an adversary of the United States, such betrayal has been applauded. Those behaving in ways that are treasonous to governments in places ranging from Nicaragua to Afghanistan to Syria, have been labeled “freedom fighters,” “moderate rebels” and said to be the “Moral equivalent to our founding fathers.” Even presently, the Trump regime (with bipartisan support) would have us praise the treasonous behavior of US backed, self-appointed president of Venezuela, Juan Guaido. The up until recently unknown figure is now on record openly calling for a US invasion of his country. How would we view any American politician calling for a Russian invasion of the United States in service of advancing their political ambition?
While rendering judgment on treason is of course a matter of opinion, it’s worth escalating to Godwin’s law at this juncture. There is a whole subsection of media devoted to venerating Germans who utilized their energies towards frustrating the efforts of the Third Reich. For example, Arthur Schindler’s story wherein he saved thousands of Jews from certain death, is portrayed as a Germans’ devotion to humanity over devotion to country, and is correctly and universally lauded as heroic. However, in the nation that inspired Adolf Hitler, those that frustrate the agenda’s of the power elite remain at best obscure and at worst portrayed as villains.
Real Recognize Real
Not Everyone was on Board the Imperial Train
Forty years before Nazi Germany invaded the Sudetenland, its imperial muse had already waded chest deep into the overseas imperialism game. In the Philippines, much as in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the United States proved itself much less interested in defeating colonialism, as it was in perfecting the practice. After quickly deposing the decrepit Spanish colonizers, the United States proceeded to betray their Pacific Island allies, preventing any Filipino representation in negotiations with the defeated Spanish to determine the future of governance of the 7,000 islands. As Emilio Aguinaldo appealed in vein to the apocryphal better nature of the United States, president William McKinley made it clear that the United States had no interest in allowing Filipinos the freedom of self determination. The concept of home rule for non-whites was laughable to a society deeply ensconced in racial eugenics. As Filipinos recognized the betrayal of their temporary ally, they took up arms against them. Then, from an American army that had most recently been deployed to pacify the remaining unconquered indigenous tribes of North America, the predictable disease of racism emerged. As the Americans tortured and slaughtered Filipinos for the crime of pressing for their independence, the patriarchal racism that was displayed at the highest levels of leadership, shifted into outright racial violence at the ground level. Indeed, the same armies that had spend decades decimating resisting indigenous tribes in the American West, could now direct their violent white supremacy toward a new target in the South Pacific. The fighting men were not shy about admitting to the practice of dehumanization, as one infantry man, Jacob Sweet commented of killing the Filipinos “The scene reminded me of the shooting of jack-rabbits in Utah, only the rabbits sometimes got away, but the insurgents did not.”
David Fagen, an African American serving in the army, recognized the familiar racism and dehumanization displayed by soldiers allegedly on his side. In the Untied States, this was the era of Jim Crow. Less than four decades removed from slavery, the United States had “graduated” to (and would remain) an apartheid state where official and unofficial racial discrimination dominated the nation. As the war against Filipino peasants intensified, an internal demand for action took hold of Fagen. Perhaps the catalyst for his eventual defection was an admiration for the Filipinos, or maybe it was the well documented racism within the US army that he saw wielded both at black soldiers and the alleged enemies. It was likely a combination of those factors that led Fagen to betray his loyalty for the United States in favor of his loyalty to the oppressed peoples of the world. He joined the Filipino army and took up arms against his former compatriots. Martyrdom was the price Fagen paid for his heroism, as the US army succeeded in capturing and hanging him for his act of bravery. Both the Filipinos, African American soldiers, and the American leadership recognized the potential for intersectional resistance that was taking place in South Asia, and all parties acted accordingly with their respective interests in the colonial struggle. For Fagen, this meant defecting to the army fighting against his countrymen, who were engaged in wholesale genocide. For the American military leadership, this meant neutralizing Fagen because his brand of intersectional struggle would pose a great threat, not just to the US army but to the imperial project at large.
Fagen is representative of a long tradition of African American soldiers resisting American imperial efforts from outside and within the ranks of the military. This most notably occurred once more when the US returned to South Asia in the 1960s. In addition to the blatant racism they faced within the institution and the disproportionate casualties rates suffered, black soldiers again recognized the brutality their own nation was afflicting upon the Vietnamese population as part of the larger story of American contempt for non-white lives. Many went AWOL, deserted, refused orders, and even killed their commanding officers in efforts that undoubtedly contributed to ending the United States’ genocidal misadventure in Vietnam.
We Were Not Sending our Best To Mexico:
While most historians will identify the aforementioned 1898 war as a significant milestone in the growth of United States power on the world stage, the reality is that American empire began far earlier. Those who suggest that American empire began only with our nation’s violent incursion into Asia fall victim to a common intellectual trap; that is the belief that imperialism requires the crossing of an ocean. The British colony, turned independent nation, turned superpower, started as a collection of settlements on the East Coast of North America. From there, it expanded violently across the continent, an imperial venture that was completed more than 50 years prior to the violence of 1898. That final devouring of the remainder of the continent was achieved through a war that, by today’s standards, was engaged in fairly honestly. In fact, James K. Polk had run for president on the promise that he would invade Mexico. After engineering a conflict at the border of Mexico and the United States (As we are wont to do), the 19th century conqueror and his fellow travelers in congress seized on the opportunity to make war upon the inhabitants south of the Rio Grande.
Against the protestations of literary figures, former presidents, and future presidents, the United States engaged in a foreign war of conquest. As the growing imperium exerted extreme violence upon Mexican cities and their inhabitants, occupied the capital, and proceeded to annex nearly half the country, the immorality of the war sparked resistance amongst the war’s fighters as well. In a theme that would repeat itself, those persecuted by bigoted policy within the United States, would prove to be leading dissenters in the empire’s violent expansion. In the mid-19th century, this role was taken up by the persecuted and maligned Irish Americans. As young Irish men joined the American military and were sent south of the disputed border, the contradiction of the war with their Catholic beliefs would become obvious. The wonton slaughter of Mexican civilians, (almost entirely Catholics, as well) was not in congruence with the teachings of Christ (a lesson seemingly lost on the modern evangelical movement.) Specifically, the anti-Catholic discrimination in the US army and more broadly in the United States, was a leading factor for desertion, as later detailed by the leader of the Battalion, John Riley. It is also likely that many identified the plight of the Mexicans against their imperialist neighbor with the longstanding Irish struggle against imperial Britain. Those for whom the immortality of the war became too burdensome to bare, deserted and proceeded to join the Mexican military, taking up arms against their former compatriots. Composed of approximately 700 marginalized immigrants and led by Riley, El Batallion de San Patricio (Saint Patrick’s Battalion) became an effective artillery unit for the Mexican army, and fought heroically. Most notably, the battalion bled side by side with their Mexican brethren at the doomed effort in the Battle of Churubusco, where they were defeated in an engagement where they were outnumbered two to one by the Americans. Most members of the turncoat battalion were caught, and fifty were eventually hung for treason. Their crime was opposing an imperial invasion by the growing power to their north. More broadly, their major transgression was allowing their conscience to replace mindless obedience to empire as the dominant motivating factor for their actions. The imperial war against Mexico was consequential for not just the United States, but for the world. The conflict spawned many outcomes, not least of which was expanding the United States’ borders to the Pacific Ocean, completing the transcontinental empire dreamed of by its leaders. The oceanic boundaries would prove too restricting for American leadership some half a century later, leading to intercontinental imperial violence, and more heroic traitors, like David Fagen, emerging out of the subsequent operations.
Rethinking Treason and It’s Application
Betrayal of Who?
Then there is the issue with the word’s application at large. Why is it that betraying one’s post in an immoral war (nearly all in US history) and fighting with the alleged enemy against one’s former compatriots is considered treason, whereas sending men to die in said wars is never painted as such? It is a matter of the interpretation of treason, as in a difference between believing it means:
a) betrayal of one’s government
OR
b) betrayal of the people of the country.
OR
c) betrayal of one’s own morality and values
If one has a rigid view of treason that is restricted to the first definition, then it can, in theory, be applied to our aforementioned heroic figures (Fagen and the St. Patrick’s Battalion), and we need to start associating treason often with heroism. However, if treason is expanded to include betrayal of one’s countrymen, then our cast of treasonous characters changes entirely and so does its heroic connotation.
Given a definition of treason that is reliant on betrayal of the citizens of one’s country, how is it that Lyndon Johnson escaped the “traitor” label when he escalated the war in Vietnam with the knowledge that the war could not be won (as revealed by a recorded phone call with Senator Russell and the Pentagon Papers?) Do the unnecessary deaths of some 58,220 Americans meet the minimum criteria of treason?
How is it that Barack Obama, Robert Gates, Stanley McCrystal, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and host of other national security officials, all escape the traitor label, despite the 2019 release Afghanistan Papers, which show (similarly to the Pentagon Papers) that the Afghan war has never been winnable and has only been continued on a basis of lies. A decade before the revelations (and nearly a decade after the war’s beginning) whistleblowers like the State Department’s Matthew Hoh and Army’s Daniel Davis had pleaded with the Obama military establishment that the war could not be won regardless of how many troops were sent into the “battlefield.” American involvement in the war could and should have ended there. However, their pleas fell on deaf ears, and the surge proceeded in 2009, leading to the unecessary deaths of 1,729 American soldiers and countless Afghans since. Top leadership was informed that the endeavor was a fool’s errand, yet proceeded with the doomed plan regardless.
Beyond its continuation, the Afghanistan war did not need to start in the first place. The plot that led to the tragic deaths of 2, 977 Americans on 9/11/2001 did not involve planning or execution by a single Afghan. While it is true that Osama Bin Laden had been given refuge in Afghanistan since 1996, the relationship with the Taliban and Al Qaeda had always been a tenuous one. In the summer of 2001, the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, said of the Saudi dissident, “He’s like a chicken bone caught in my throat, can’t swallow it or cough it up”. It is easy to understand why the Taliban would resent Bin Laden. As Bin Laden waged his war on the the West from Afghanistan, he was endangering the Afghan government of becoming the subject of aggression by the most powerful nation in existence. In this context, it should be no surprise that contrary to the common narrative, the Taliban made numerous attempts prior to 9/11/01 both to put Bin Laden on trial and even to warn the United States about the impending attack. All of this fell on willingly deaf ears of the superpower. In the weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden to any other Muslim country if the United States presented evidence. The Bush Administration would not oblige. Even after the bombing of Afghanistan started in October of 2001, Omar offered to give up Bin Laden to any neutral country, but the US would not agree, electing instead to engage in a two decade war. Although the war had unnecessarily been initiated in spite of the Taliban’s efforts, it still could have been over within months. By December of 2001, the entirety of the Al Qaeda membership in Afghanistan was either dead or had escaped to Pakistan. More significantly, nearly all of the top leadership of the Taliban had surrendered and pledged loyalty to the newly US installed Karzai government. Still, the superpower would not accept their surrender, and as a result, presently there are American soldiers who were not even born when the war began that are now in harm’s way, half a world from their homes. Just War theory holds that war can only be justified as a last resort. The number of off ramps that were offered to the US en route to starting, continuing, and escalating the Afghanistan war indicate that war was far closer to a first option than a last resort. The tens of thousands of American soldiers who have been killed, wounded, or suffer severe mental trauma would be correct to identify their own nation’s diplomatic, political, and military leadership as the author of their hardship. They were betrayed by those who sent them into and continued a totally avoidable conflict in spite of other available options and information. These traitors to the American citizenry have never been held to account for their treason.
A Word on Loyalty
The word that represents antithesis to treason in most common interpretations is “loyalty.” However, this too, is a word in need of inspection. In a testament to the dangers of loyalty, Colin Powell betrayed his countrymen when he knowingly fabricated details, excised important facts, and omitted the truth in front of the UN in 2003 to help make the case for war with Iraq. The man for whom loyalty was his guiding principle, should have pondered: to whom does he owe that loyalty? For Powell, the answer to that question was President Bush. Through his preference to honor the chain of command and bestow loyalty on a single man, rather than in the American people, he achieved complicity in an illegal war that killed 4, 489 Americans, injured thousands more, and claimed the lives of well over a million Iraqis. It is fair to say that loyalty in this case was not the antithesis to treason but rather a complimentary trait.
Is it Treason to Provide Aid to Our Past, Current, or Future Enemies?
It was All Good Just a Week Ago
Treason, at its basic constitutional definition, implies providing aid to the enemies of the United States, and thus betraying the US government. If we are to accept this dynamic, people far more powerful than David Fagen and the St. Patrick’s Battalion need to be added to this list of traitors. This is a complicated issue, as so many of America’s alleged enemies were at one point allies. It may be slightly unfair to hold US officials accountable for giving aid to allies that would later become enemies, but the fact that there are so many examples of this behavior, is instructive to how distrustful one should be of the government to which they bestow loyalty on. For a short list, there is Donald Rumsfeld and his bromance with Saddam Hussein, Ronald Reagan and his support for the Afghan Mujahideen, (later to become Al Qaeda and the Taliban), and George H. W. Bush and his CIA’s patronage of Manuel Noriega. Then there are the numerous US corporations and capitalists who were more than happy to do business with the Nazi regime as it rose to prominence; can they be viewed as traitors post facto? Once again, given the ever shifting role of foreign actors from ally to enemy, it could be argued that we should reserve our judgement of these Americans for their friendly associations with the “enemy.”
However, there are cases where the reservation of judgement was not a privilege given to regular citizens who allied with groups that only subsequently became US enemies. It was unfortunate for American citizen, John Walker Lindh, that he lacked foresight when he traveled to Afghanistan as a 19-year-old in 2000. He joined the Taliban in their civil war against the (arguably even more brutal) Northern Alliance. Unbeknownst to Lindh, within a year his nation of birth would be at war against his newfound Taliban comrades, and the warlords of the Northern Alliance would begin to receive Washington’s (in some cases renewed) patronage. Upon his capture (by the Northern Alliance), no level of sympathy was granted to the apprehended American. No understanding or nuance was granted to the then twenty-year-old for the misfortune of having joined a group that would a year later become a US enemy. Indeed, for his misjudgment, he was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, significant portions of which were spent in isolation. Much of Lindh’s demonization comes from the incorrect conflation of the Taliban and Al Qaeda organizations as being one in the same. Regardless of one’s opinion of the Taliban, they only transformed into an enemy of the United States when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Lindh had made a decision a year earlier to fight for a foreign cause that he identified with, much the same as the many Americans who join the Israeli Defense Forces (presumably the latter cause being to enforce subjugation of the Palestinians.) If Americans ever begin to seriously question the relationship with the apartheid state, will Lindh’s zionist counterparts face similar justice? Doubtful.
From Ally to Enemy, and Back Again
For the Taliban, John Walker Lindh’s contributions to their efforts must seem small compared to the billions of dollars in bribes the Islamic fundamentalists received from the United States government over the course of the longest war in US history. In what seems like a dark comedy, the US military has been documented literally bribing the Taliban for security for its truck deliveries of materials to army units spread around the rugged countryside. This was not a deal struck prior to hostilities but literally negotiated as the US had been engaged in combat against the Taliban. To make that abundantly clear, the US has been paying the very same group that it is allegedly at war against to assure transport of materials to continue the war against the very same entity. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. If John Walker Lindh was treasonous for collaborating with the Taliban, then there ought to be a number of lieutenants and generals also serving quarter century prison sentences for their treason as well.
What should be more evidentiary of treason, in the aligning with enemies of the United States definition, are the events in which US leaders have given material support to a contemporaneously declared US enemy (this is not meant to validate these characterizations.) When Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1996 and proceeded in his attacks, he probably imagined the days of partnership between the US and his brand of Islamist militants were over. In this prediction, he would have been overestimating the US foreign policy establishment’s propensity for historical memory. Indeed, defeating Al Qaeda became a secondary goal to disciplining the Islamic Republic of Iran, for having the audacity to benefit from the US self inflicted wound of eliminating the anti-Iranian Bathe Party in Iraq. The 2003 Iraq war subsequently empowered Iran in the Persia adjacent nation. (Simply imagine how the US might maneuver to ensure a friendly government was in place if the government of Canada were overthrown.) The following events are what journalist Seymour Hersh has termed a “redirection.” After being brought to realize by the Iranian adverse Saudis that war had effectively given Iraq to the Shia Iranians, Washington redirected its policy in the Middle East from fighting terror and toppling Saddam, to weakening Iran (the perpetually exaggerated threat in the region.) This gave life to old neoconservative dreams, first articulated in the “A Clean Break” paper published by the war mongering “Project for a New American Century” think tank in the 1990’s. In the context of the Middle East, weakening Iran has meant weakening its allies, both of the state and non state variety. The results of such a policy have been to once again give tacit support to Sunni Islamist extremists, many with allegiances to Al Qaeda. These enemies of the Shia Republic were often portrayed as “moderate rebels” as the Syrian Civil War broke out in 2011. These militants were used as a proxy force by the Gulf states and the US against the Iranian allied Bashar Al Assad government. Through Timber Sycamore, the largest CIA operation since the first time Washington allied itself with Islamist fanatics in Afghanistan, weapons flowed from newly destroyed Libya, through the Gulf States, Turkey, and somehow nearly all managed to end up in the hands of Al Qaeda linked Salafi militants. This was no surprising affair, as Hillary Clinton, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Vice President (maybe future president) Joe Biden all acknowledged the reality of who was the dominant force fighting in the anti-government coalition in Syria. Military personnel and members of Congress also identified the beneficiaries of continued US aggression against the Assad government. The very same (not so moderate militants) are currently condemned as terrorists by US officials, as they have been utilized by Turkey against the US aligned Kurds. It sure is funny how they were moderate rebels when engaged in a brutal war on Assad’s forces, but suddenly became terrorists (again) when they attacked a US proxy. Other formerly US allied Islamist militias control the Idlib province in Northwest Syria, a context often left out of US media reporting of the Syrian and Iranian conduct in the province… (one wonders how the United States would behave were Islamist militants to take a sizable portion of say… Montana.)
Furthermore, when the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria emerged and grew in strength in 2014, (as a direct consequence of US actions) the US believed that it could “manage” the situation to “leverage” against the Assad government, as detailed by former Secretary of State, John Kerry in leaked audio. The hubristic belief of being able to manage militants once again proved to backfire, bringing the Russians into the war (also acknowledged by Kerry), and ensuring the Syrian government’s victory. How would most Americans react if they fully understood that the US state department, CIA, and DOD had for nearly a decade provided indirect and direct support for Al Qaeda and its affiliates? How would Americans judge the attitude expressed by Kerry, wherein he admitted ISIS was permitted to grow as a bargaining chip to use against Assad? This move allowed ISIS to reap havoc, killing thousands, including the beheading of US journalists, all as part of a cynical (and failing) plot to weaken Iran and its allies. We have had a twenty year war dedicated to fighting the ambiguous tactic of terror. This endeavor has been one for which Americans have sacrificed their lives, their domestic freedoms, and worst of all, inflicted incalculable death and destruction of the Arab world. If America does have a real enemy, (and that’s a big “if”) one would assume it would be the only group to have actually attacked the US homeland in the past three decades. Either we should identify those Americans who have aided Al Qaeda as traitorous, or we should admit that this “War on Terror” endeavor has always been a fruitless pursuit, rife with ideological inconsistencies. I’d submit that both of these conclusions are accurate.
45 is a Traitor… in the Unambiguously Bad Way
Donald Trump is a traitor. That is for certain, but for none of the reasons mainstream media says he is. If you listen to John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, you’d believe that Trump is treasonous for his alleged affinity for dictators, likely referring to his (failing) peace attempts with North Korea. It is illustrative of a bipartisan affinity for war that a major prong in the argument against Trump is criticizing one of the only positive actions the game show host has done in his presidency. The United States has been occupying the Korean peninsula on the other side of the planet for seven decades as the result of a war in which it had no business taking part in. The delicate ceasefire persists, more than half a century since the hostilities in which millions of Koreans perished. Perhaps Trump’s instinct to make peace is one of those broken clock situations, but the reality is, he is right in this instinct, if only for a brief 2 seconds of the day. The correct identification of Trump’s treason lies in his betrayal to the American people. He is a traitor to the populace for his terrible mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic which has led to the deaths of nearly two hundred thousand Americans. He is treasonous for his continued support for the genocidal Saudi War in Yemen and once again placing the US in a de-facto alliance with Al Qaeda. In spite of what the musings of Rachel Maddow might have you believe, Trump is actually treasonous for escalating the US to an extremely dangerous level of tension with Russia. In addition to leveling sanctions, arming fascists in Ukraine (an action even Obama refused to take), and attacking Moscow’s close allies in Syria, Trump has also conducted cyber warfare, expelled Russian diplomats, and conducted provocative military drills near the Russian border. Perhaps worst of all, the 45th US president has been pulling out of nuclear arms agreements that had existed since the Cold War. The few security measures in place that exist between the world and nuclear war should be considered sacred. After all, very little could be more of a betrayal to one’s country, or the Earth’s inhabitants, than escalating to a potential nuclear exchange with a nation which poses no real threat to US citizens.
The Reality of Treason, in Our Own Galaxy …Not so Far Away
Our negative association of treason is rooted in American Exceptionalism. While it was righteous for Germans or Iraqis to desert from their armies, when our soldiers of conscience do it, it is objectionable, if not criteria for imprisonment or execution. The American project is considered to be unquestionably noble, and thus to betray it, is immoral. Even in our fiction, an American exceptionalism, or at least misunderstanding of American Empire is evident. The Star Wars series proves to be an illustrative example and one in which the antagonist, “The Empire,” Americans oddly don’t empathize with. In fact, in Episode VII, when the imperial storm trooper, Finn, abandons his post to take up arms with the rebellion, the crowd is meant to applaud, with zero sense of irony; that this is the fictional analogue of an American soldier defecting in combat. Indeed, if the United States is analogous with any entity in the Spielberg Universe, it is the Empire. The “Rebellion” would best be represented in our world by the variety of forces of the global South, deemed to be non-compliant by the global hegemonic power, that have resisted Washington’s military and economic imperatives.
Treason needs to be examined from several angles. First, it needs to be inspected for elements of American Exceptionalism-based bias. Secondly, we need to reconcile with that fact that many heroic figures have themselves been labeled traitorous by their contemporaries. This cast of heroes, slandered as traitors, includes not just the St. Patrick’s Battalion and David Fagen, but host of other heroic dissidents including John Brown, who took up arms against his government for the righteous cause of ending of slavery, and the more recently imprisoned Chelsea Manning for leaking documentation of US war crimes. Lastly, if we insist on using the word with a negative connotation, we need to decide which definition of treason most accurately aligns with immorality. Allegiance to one’s government should never outweigh the allegiance to the vast swaths of humanity or one’s own values. If we hold this last definition to be truthful, we can move forward with a conception of treason that aligns closer with morality, renders the Confederate defenders of slavery as irredeemable traitors, and elevates America’s long tradition of dissenters to hero status.