In addition to the War on Terror that was launched after 9/11, Professor of History at Indiana University John Bodnar claimed that a secondary war was also launched post-9/11: The War over Patriotism, which he describes as a debate over how Americans understand the War on Terror at this year’s Pflaum Lecture.

Bodnar presented two different types of patriotism: firstly, “war-based patriotism,” which he claimed glorifies death and violence in the name of love and tends to downplay the damage war does to human relationships.  This “war-based patriotism” seeks to contain trauma but diminishes the discussion of how the loss of loved ones affects those who survive, according to Bodnar. In contrast, Bodnar added that “empathic patriotism,” shows more affection towards human bonds, such as family and comrades-in-arms and less of an emphasis on the nation itself.

Bodnar also spoke of the rise in “patriotic hate” and “nativism” that he claims led to attacks on Muslim and people perceived to be Muslim post-9/11. Bodnar also presented cases in which immigrants or Muslims were killed as a “crime of passion and patriotism,” as well as instances of outrage over memorials for 9/11 that showed evidence of sympathy for Muslims.

Jeremy Ball, history department chair at Dickinson, says that “Each year history department faculty discusses possible Pflaum lecturers and decide by consensus whom to invite. The decision to invite [Bodnar] to give this year’s Pflaum Lecture was the result of a recommendation made by Dr. Robert Kraemer, who made a gift to the history department in memory of his late son, Dr. Peter Kraemer [’94]. Dr. Kraemer worked with Dr. Bodnar at Indiana.”  Ball commented that “Dr. Bodnar does interesting work in social history” and reflected on how “His lecture emphasized cultural sources such as films and novels.”

“I hope audience members took away the array of sources used by historians,” said Ball.

Rachel Morgan ’18 appreciated “the focus on how [the War on Terror] affected the average American, rather than going into a more political talk…” Morgan added that for her, “personally, it helps to make it feel a little more realistic and helps to hit home just how much these kinds of things really affect the average person rather than just seeing the numbers and general updates on the news.”

Grace Ingle ’20 also appreciated how Bodnar focused more on people’s reactions to a war rather than comparing one side to another. She also commented on the first question after the lecture, which addressed how Bodnar seemed to not approve of American defensive tactics after 9/11. “The first comment… basically just assumed that [Bodnar] thought a certain way and was trying to discredit what he was saying when, really, [the commenter] missed the broader point, which was just comparing how the American people respond to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq… despite all the emphasis.”

Bodnar hopes that people who attended the lecture came out of it understanding that the War on Terror was not something that everyone wanted, claiming, “It doesn’t mean that they didn’t continue to support their troops, but they became more insistent that we not forget the suffering that the troops of the people in Afghanistan or Iraq or loved ones in American went through…” Bodnar concluded that “I want them to understand that the country has been divided over that, even though we don’t talk about it on the nightly news.”

The lecture was held on Thursday, April 5 in the Stern Great Room.