What does Patriatism mean?

[sweetnpetite]

Flag-Waving Patriotism Overload:
I'M READY FOR A LOYALTY THAT EXTENDS TO ALL MANKIND

By JOHN O. ANDERSEN
July 1, 2002



I'm a USA citizen. I've always voted, and am active an vocal in the political process. I'm a veteran. I know firsthand about service to one's country, and about sacrifice. However, I'm weary of we're-the-best-country-in-the-world patriotism.

Yes, I believe in loyalty to country. Yes, I strongly, and actively support good government and laws. Yes, I teach my children American history, and I'm an avid history buff myself. We visit historic sites, read books, view movies, and talk a lot about those things. It's one of my passions.

But, I don't care for constant flag waving anymore. I don't feel comfortable always wearing my love of country on my shirt sleeve; of reducing it to a soundbite, a public spectacle.

I've reached a point in life where I no longer see the need to put the USA above any other country or people. It makes more sense to see humankind as our equals. I think it's wise to emphasize the good in other countries rather than their shortcomings as we see them. I believe not everyone in the world wants to live like we do. I like the idea that other countries and people of different nationalities can enrich my life and mind. Why would I want to alienate them by acting like I'm superior?

No, I don't support the idea of a world government, but I do find the nationalistic elements of USA patriotism to be counterproductive. I think it's possible to have autonomous countries without the need for heavy jingoistic fervor. I think it's possible to be both a loyal national citizen and a world citizen at the same time.

On this 4th of July, I shall be celebrating freedom, but not only the USA's version. I shall also be celebrating the freedom that exists in many other countries around the world.

Care to join me?

http://www.unconventionalideas.com/patriotism.html

http://www.unconventionalideas.com/essays.html

 

[tolyk]

Well said. Thanks for sharing that article Sweet.

 

[rgraham666]

My loyalty is, and always will be, to my species, humanity.

 

[minsue]

My loyalty is, and always will be, to my species, humanity.

Well said.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Damn straight, patriotism is and always has been about loyalty to one's country. Its land, its people, its ideals, in the protection of your loved ones and your fellow man. It has meaning beyond what it has been pimped to mean.

An unpatriotic sect of fuckwits have turned something with merit, something that means something into a whore. A soundbite meaning loyalty to an agenda, to symbols, to a partisan group of unAmerican traitors.

I still understand what it means, nonetheless. You stand by your fellow men, all men, and the ideals of your nation, as they truly are not as bigots try and mold it into.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Patriotism is just the feel-good way of saying Nationalism.

The history of human progress is the history of expanding the circle of the people we consider human. First it was the family, then the clan, the tribe, the city-state, the ethnic group, religious group, race, and now the nation-state. This is slowly giving way to include people of both sexes, everywhere on the planet, that we're all in this together. It's a concept that's long overdue, and one that a lot of people still have real trouble with, even today.

In the US, Patriotism is nothing more than High School team spirit write large, and, as Frank Zappa said, Americans spend the rest of their lives trying to recover from High School. Most people never do.

The people I care about are transnational. The ideals I value are out of favor with the majority of my countrymen at the moment, and there are times when I feel like this isn't the country I know anymore. Patriotism is a hollow concept to me. I don't know what it means anymore, but it doesn't seem to be anything good.

 

[Guest]

. . . The people I care about are transnational. The ideals I value are out of favor with the majority of my countrymen at the moment, and there are times when I feel like this isn't the country I know anymore. Patriotism is a hollow concept to me. I don't know what it means anymore, but it doesn't seem to be anything good.

The meaning has been perverted, hasn't it?

Much like the terms "liberal" or "conservative" or even "family values". Those terms are now being used as tools to bash the person who dares hold an opposing view.

We don't bash the opinion, we bash the person.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Patriotism?

It's loving and supporting the ideals of your country. Not looking down on other nations; not placing yourself above others, but respecting your own country's values. And most times, being willing to fight to maintain them.

Q_C

 

[amicus]

Although it is clear the quoted essay at the beginning and most of the commentary thereafter, is but another assault on Bush and the religious right, and America in general; there is more that should be said, said amicus....

The first thing that came to mind is a 70's film, I think, with Kirk Douglas and Senta Berger, 'Cast a Giant Shadow'; a story about the Jewish homeland of Israel following World War two. Patrotism there, love of country, love of fellow Jews, was a tangible thing, deeply felt.

I think the American Patriots at and during the time of the Revolution against England, was also a tangible thing and a good thing.

I think that when Winston Churchill made his now famous remarks concerning fighting on the sea, on the beaches, on the land, to the last man, to protect our little Island, was an expression of Patriotism, and a good thing.

I am often brought to tears when listening to the French National anthem, or even the Russian one, let alone God Save the Queen, or God Bless America. The symbols of flag and country. Mabeuse started to make a good point, expanding from the individual to the larger groups that shared a common bond, but he let it slip away somehow when applied to a larger humanity.

One can agree that 'patriotism' has become trivialized and commercialized in many aspects, but there are many rituals, social and religious, that people practice all over the world, in all societies that act to bind a people together and pass on to the next generation, by rote if necessary, a respect for the values of their elders and those before them.

To tie that in with other opinions I have expressed, I also think a certain 'passion' almost blind passion, such a romantic love, must be expressed over ones family, friends and the wider community beyond kith and kin.

To dismiss Patriotism because one does not feel the 'passion' eliminates a whole spectrum of human existence, such as the 'Charge of the Light Brigade', and for some reason the 'Dutch' come to mind, the South Africans before the socialists took over, or even the 'Star Spangled Banner'.

There is always the possiblity, always fraught with intellectuals, of becoming too sophisticated and worldly, thus, jaded and cynical about the common passions men share.

just food for thought....


amicus...

 

[cantdog]

Graduating into a wider world is not an intellectual act, amicus, but a spiritual growth.

 

[amicus]

Cant...as you might suspect, I disagree...


Spiritual: 1. Of or pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.

Spirit: 1. The principle of conscious life, the vital principle in man, animating the body or mediating between body and soul. 2. The incorporeal part of man; present in spirit though absent in body.

Incorporeal: 1. Not corporeal or material; insubstantial. 2. Of, pertaining to or characteristic of non material beings.

Thus, 'spiritual' can be defined in almost any manner you choose since 'reality' the corporeal existence of man is denied as formative.

It is thus that the religions of the world and all other subjective belief patterns, continue to exist, divorced from reality and the corporeal or 'real' world.

You may, of course, believe whatever you wish, however, putting your faith before others allows it to be challenged and since it cannot be defended, only believed, you and the others, live in a world of your own creation.

So be it.


amicus...

 

[cantdog]

Thus, 'spiritual' can be defined in almost any manner you choose since 'reality' the corporeal existence of man is denied as formative.

It is thus that the religions of the world and all other subjective belief patterns, continue to exist, divorced from reality and the corporeal or 'real' world.

You may, of course, believe whatever you wish, however, putting your faith before others allows it to be challenged and since it cannot be defended, only believed, you and the others, live in a world of your own creation.

So be it.


amicus...

There you get the wrong idea, amicus. I have no faith, except insofar as atheism can deserve the term. Occam's razor says there is no god, in my view, but Occam's razor is not a logical instrument, just a philosophical one.

As an atheist it took me some time to integrate 'spiritual' into the working vocab, you know?
spiritual
transcend
divine
soul
all these terms, to an atheist, seem like null terms, meaningless words without referent. you transcend, dude; I'll walk. I'll get there, you'll be doing nothing definable.

Yet I have been forced by the very circumstance we are here discussing to begin to use 'spiritual' to mean something. It's because there are concepts and experiences which other words do not convey.

You say I can define 'spiritual' any way I choose. This is primarily because it refers to an essentially immeasurable part of life. Spirit does not cause meter twitches. It cannot be measured or quantified. It is, you say, therefore unreal.

since 'reality' the corporeal existence of man is denied as formative.

I submit that what you so blithely slop about in your post, "passion", is no less unreal. One cannot measure passion either. Passion and spirit both refer to interior experience. They have to do with depth, not surface. Your so-called reality ignores all depth. It is surfaces only with which it is concerned.

Surfaces can be measured. Science is concerned with them, exclusively. Only the measurable need apply. If it is undetectable to an instrument of measure, it does not exist, to hard science. Not 'objective.'

But you are wrong to limit reality to the surface.

Much of our human existence takes place in depth. The investigative procedures are not those which one person can do. Hard science is a monologue, and one researcher with objective instruments and the winnow of logic can learn what needs to be learnt about it. Other parts, beyond scientific reality (you yourself say they are capable of any definition whatever; this is a measure of your helplessness to grasp them objectively, because in fact they are not so open-ended as you say) are a dialogue. You never find out about beauty except through asking other people and interpreting what you hear. You never can investigate soul, personality, consciousness, quality itself except in dialogue. There are vast ranges of knowledge unattainable except through dialogue.

Depth, not surface. Truth, this is objective, but whether or not something is good? Does science possess a good-o-meter? I have an individual consciousness, and so do you. But you have no way of measuring it; it registers upon no instrument. The very existence of human consciousness has to be inferred from asking other people how they experience things. Dialogue.

Yet consciousness is no more unreal than squirrels or chairs, even though not measurable. You know that as well as I since you, too, possess consciousness.

 

[elsol]

If it is undetectable to an instrument of measure, it does not exist, to hard science.

Actually, the failure of hard science is to dismiss these things as undetectable.

Rather I would prefer to say, at our present knowledge WE cannot detect them.

For all we know, ET could come down and say 'You can't detect love? Fucking morons! Next your going to tell us at some point, you thought your planet was flat! Har-har-har! Uh... why aren't you laughing?'

Sincerely,
elsol

 

[amicus]

Cant & El Sol Cant, you said in part: "...Depth, not surface. Truth, this is objective, but whether or not something is good? Does science possess a good-o-meter? I have an individual consciousness, and so do you. But you have no way of measuring it; it registers upon no instrument. The very existence of human consciousness has to be inferred from asking other people how they experience things. Dialogue...."

I continue to 'blithely slop along...' as you say, because most people are not familiar with formal philosophical terms and meanings. Secondly one must, if one wishes to communicate at all, speak in the same language and at a level that most can comprehend. So yes, I 'slop along' trying to find a common denominator or understanding, here and elsewhere.

"..., but whether or not something is good? Does science possess a good-o-meter?..."

Yes, I maintain that 'good' is objective and that science can both determine and measure the degree to which it exists.

The entire field of psychology throughtout its history has worked to comprehend the human mind and the feeling and emotions associated with the thinking process.

It may come as a shock to you to learn that emotions and feelings, 'spiritual things' in your terms, along with truth and beauty, are all very objective and 'real' things.

Since you readily accept the concept that science can determine and measure the solid, concrete, corporeal aspects of existence, it should be just a short step to extend that to basic feelings such as hunger and thirst.

Once you grasp that concept, that the 'feeling' of hunger or thirst, are real emotions linked by cause and effect, then you can go on towards the more abstract concepts such as love and hatred and fear.

The innate desire of man to know of whence cameth he and where goest he, is also a cause and effect relationship of man's sentience, (self awareness) and the cognitive powers of the mind that can foresee death and non existence.

I long ago quit expecting most people to comprehend the connection between mind and body, thought and emotions, as I discovered they simply do not have the brainpower to embrace the concept.

Much of humanity must of necessity, function on a 'rote' level of existence. They need something or someone to follow. A supreme being or a strong leader to guide them both in their daily chores and their vision of life overall.

The intellectual course of mankind since before the time of Thales, has been to understand and comprehend existence through the use of rational and logical conceptualization.

It does not trouble me that common man requires a god to believe in, NASCAR and the NFL to occupy his idle hours.

It does trouble me that so many, who are capable of individual thought, do not exercise that ability.

amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

Although it is clear the quoted essay at the beginning and most of the commentary thereafter, is but another assault on Bush and the religious right, and America in general; there is more that should be said, said amicus....


amicus...

If it is, perhaps he- and they needs to be 'asualted.'

Perhaps they are *very very wrong.*

--Just maybe.

 

[thebullet]

Patriotism is just the feel-good way of saying Nationalism. etc.

Again Dr. M has nailed it. No one could have said it better.

To quote Dr Johnson: Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Our government is as always, awash in patriots (read scoundrels).

 

[elsol]

Again Dr. M has nailed it. No one could have said it better.

To quote Dr Johnson: Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Our government is as always, awash in patriots (read scoundrels).

*burp*

I'm glad the blood on Iraqi soil is that of scoundrels.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[thebullet]

el sol said:
I'm glad the blood on Iraqi soil is that of scoundrels.

Did you truly interpret what I wrote to mean that? That is a vicious thing to say.

I did not now will I ever make any statement maligning our fighting men. I can take an insult, but this one was truly cruel.

What Dr Johnson was refering to (since you need me to interpret it for you) are those people who wear their patriotism on their sleeves.

 

[Liar]

Patriotism requires borders.

Borders are a figment of the imagination.

Ergo...

 

[cantdog]

Ergo, patriotism requires imagination?

 

[Penelope Street]

What does Patriatism mean?

Sanctioned bigotry.

 

[cantdog]

A civilization is a great undertaking, and a multigenerational task. It represents a group achievement, a higher calling than the simple demands of self-interest.

To the extent that the work a person does furthers their civilization, makes it great, lifts it up, she is participating in something bigger than herself. If that can be the meaning of patriotism, then we have a good thing here. But much that proclaims itself to be patriotic does not actually do that.

It behooves a person to discern between the one and the other, if they are concerned to support, as Quiet_Cool suggests, the ideals of their civilization.

Thus I support the ideals of democracy, liberty, compassion, the good of the commonalty. To me this is to lift up the civilization. The blood of Iraqis in the streets of their homeland, defending against the occupier? That is properly also the blood of patriots, but they are, of course, concerned with their own civilization, not mine.

I wonder if that's what el sol was suggesting?

I don't think invading Iraq without pretext redounded to the credit of our civilization in the slightest. I don't see the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which undermine and abrogate the ideals of my country, as patriotic.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Patriotism is a conservative value. Conservative because it honors traditions and the history of one's country. It's a reverrence for the symbols and situations that have defined a nation's growth.

This is not to say there are no liberal patriots. It is simply harder for a liberal to internalize and honor much of the past, because that past embraces things that run counter to a liberal's worldview.

Patriotism is the most easily hijackable of emotive assossiations. Jingoism, rabid nationalism, etc. Can be shoe horned onto that reverence by the unscupulous. Often times, the reverence of a patriot is in direct conflict with the current world situation and it is easy there to skew things to show that as an attack on your country.

I love the Us. I'm proud of our accoplishments as a nation. I don't ignore the bad we have done, but I find it less often than the good.

Minsue and Doc both find protesting the war in vietnam and Iraq to be partiotic. I did not vote for John Kerry, in large part because of his anti-war activities. So patriotism is not some static set ov values you can demonize. It's a very personal and dynamic association people have with the country they reside in.

Doc is no less patriotic than I am. To him, the essence of his love of this country is in trying to make it live up to the ideals he has for it. And who is to say that is wrong headed? Certainly not I.

Patriotism spurred millions of common men to enlist and bring about the downfall of national Scocailism and military conquest during WWII. It is difficult to argue that it wasn't partiotic furor that motivated the large number of men who volunteered after their country was atacked. It is also dificult to argue that it was a bad thing. But it must be remembered that german men volunteered from the same motivation, as did Japanese and Italian men.

Patriotism, like almost any other force, can be made to serve hero and villian alike. to decry it as evil is to ignroe the good it has done just as to uphold it as a morla virtue is to ignore the bad it has done.

 

[cantdog]

Just the same, if a civilization has found the way to live, if it can learn to combine submission to law with liberty, it is deserving of support.

Men in all ages lack the ability to combine submission to law with liberty, though. And society is typically protected from degenerating into disorder only by the force of tradition and the grooves men move in. Ideologies have only a negative impact.

There must be a constant effort to balance the common sense of the general good with ethical considerations, reason, and so on. Settling on any absolute overriding truth always has its consequences.