Patriotism

[Adam]

"One of the great attractions of patriotism -- it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous."
-- Aldous Huxley

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
-- Oscar Wilde

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
-- George Bernard Shaw


Why be patriotic? What is the point? Does it do anything for you? Would we all be better off without it, or should we prefer our own arbitrary borders to someone else's?

[p-brane]

It may be the devil and it may be the lord but you gonna hafta serve somebody.

Bob Dylan

[Adam]

It may be the devil and it may be the lord but you gonna hafta serve somebody.

Bob Dylan

Why serve anyone or anything?

[honestrosewater]

A witty saying proves nothing.

I hate to be so predictable, but could you define patriotism?

[confutatis]

It's good that someone reminded that patriotism must be defined. I'm not sure how to define it, because too many things fall under the concept of patriotism. Like religion, I think patriotism is basically a good thing, but it's often used by the elite to manipulate the masses into doing what they would otherwise not do. So it's not patriotism that is to be shunned, but the people who abuse it for their own selfish ends.

[Adam]

Definition
patriot [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a person who loves their country and, if necessary, will fight for it

patriotic [Show phonetics]
adjective
showing love for your country and pride in it:
patriotic fervour/pride
Many Americans felt it was their patriotic duty to buy bonds to support the war effort.

patriotically [Show phonetics]
adverb

patriotism [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
when you love your country and are proud of it

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=58085&dict=CALD

[honestrosewater]

?? Patriotism- Love for or devotion to one's country. ??

My problem is with country; Patriotism involves the idea of something larger or grander than oneself, but what exactly? Culture/heritage? Sustaining social structure/government? Land/generational property?

I would make a distinction similar to confutatis's; between sincere and insincere/forced patriotism. Of course, insincere patriotism isn't really patriotism.

I have a feeling this discussion will end with the definition.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

[russ_watters]

Why be patriotic? What is the point? Does it do anything for you? Would we all be better off without it, or should we prefer our own arbitrary borders to someone else's? The biggest problem with patriotism is though it has a specific definition, many people choose to ignore the definition for political reasons. Those quotes you posted were posted by people who choose to ignore the definition of patriotism - clearly, they do not fit the definition you posted. I hate to be so predictable, but could you define patriotism? Predictable or not, letting someone manipulate a definition for their own purposes is bad as being the one who manipulates it. Good catch.

And to take care of the obvious direction of this thread:

"nationalism

n 1: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: patriotism]
2: the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation."

Though subtle, that difference is critical and often overlooked for the sake of convenience (convenience of manipulation).

[Royce]

I am patriotic. I am a patriot. I am proud of it though don't go around spouting it nor wearing or waving our flag. I served my country and am proud of that too. I also admit that the USA may not be the best or the most righteous but it is my country and better than most.

Could it be better? Of course it could be better. But as pointed out it is the people not the country or nation that make it great or not so great.

The bottom line is that I would rather be here and be a citizen of the USA rather than anywhere else.

I don't know about Huxley but the other two were British cynics who made there living being, writing and saying controversial things.

[Dissident Dan]

I have a problem with viewing your country in a positive light because it is one's own country. Viewing a country in a positive light out of an objective assessment is acceptable to me.

I am a little turned off by people having more concern for their own country than others because it is theirs.

The idea that being patriotic is necessarily good or that not being patriotic or antipatriotic is necessarily bad is a ridiculous part of nationalism.

Those who consider themselves "patriotic" are often nationalistic, and so it is often hard to completely separate the terms. Russ stated that the difference is often overlooked, presumably referring to those who talk negatively of patriotism. However, the words are often manipulated or otherwise misused by those who speak positively.

To sum things up, I have a problem with unwarranted emotional attachment to one's country/tribe/whatever. It is dangerous. This is usually the case with those whom one would consider merely patriotic or whom one would consider nationalistic.

[honestrosewater]

Using the US as an example, the motives which led to its birth, its whole democratic process, including amending the Constitution, granting certain rights to states, counties, etc, creating new laws, and repealing old ones, involves its citizens exercising their rights to disagree with and to take action to change their country and its laws.
The idea that US citizens have a legal duty, or even a moral obligation, to serve their country or support all of its decisions is in conflict with that process and those rights. At least, IMHO.

This is one reason I would make the distinction between insincere/forced patriotism and sincere patriotism. It sounds like Royce is a sincere patriot.

I think those who condemn conscientious objectors as "unpatriotic" have missed the whole point and do not realize the hypocricy of their condemnation.

There seems to be another point in Huxley's comments: that a person need not hold themselves responsible for their own actions when they are part of a larger group or acting on behalf of another or under the command of another. This is tied to the distinction of war crimes. An interesting debate about this can be found in Shakespeare's Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1. (I think if everyone read Shakespeare, the world would be a much better place :biggrin: )

BTW I found Shaw's comment more comical than rhetorical.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

EDIT- spelling.

[p-brane]

Why serve anyone or anything?

There's no why about it. You serve everything simply by existing.

How? you may ask.

The shadow you cast serves to provide refuge for photophobic microorganisms from the sun. They thrive until you move... then they wiggle around which alerts their predators who come in and eat them... so that your moving has served the predators of those microorganisms you served up until you moved.

You breathe, while you're alive. The carbon dioxide you expell with each exhailation is serving the flora in your vicinity with one of the elements it needs to stay alive (via photosynthesis and the adeno-tri-di-phosphoric metabolic process).

You serve a great many processes that support life on this planet. You are serving everything, and everything is serving you.

In more philosophical terms, you are serving people by your very existence as well. Each social blunder you make... makes other people realize their own social blunders are equally as abhorent and may actually decrease the occurance of social blunderism. Each socially benevolent and altruistic act you make serves as an example for those who would like to be altruistic.

Blah blah blah. You may be seeing the picture now.

[p-brane]

I have a problem with viewing your country in a positive light because it is one's own country. Viewing a country in a positive light out of an objective assessment is acceptable to me.

I am a little turned off by people having more concern for their own country than others because it is theirs.

The idea that being patriotic is necessarily good or that not being patriotic or antipatriotic is necessarily bad is a ridiculous part of nationalism.

Those who consider themselves "patriotic" are often nationalistic, and so it is often hard to completely separate the terms. Russ stated that the difference is often overlooked, presumably referring to those who talk negatively of patriotism. However, the words are often manipulated or otherwise misused by those who speak positively.

To sum things up, I have a problem with unwarranted emotional attachment to one's country/tribe/whatever. It is dangerous. This is usually the case with those whom one would consider merely patriotic or whom one would consider nationalistic.

A country can lead by example. If its all cleaned up and running self sufficently in a self-sustaining manner. If its citizens are prime examples of good neighbours and its economic, social, educational and cultural values are second to none... that's when other countries will begin to take note and, perhaps take lessons from the system.

If a country is running around in Brown Shirts with German Sheppards at everyone's throats, people will either follow suit (more likely than not) or they'll begin to ostrasize the country until it is suitably softened up for a takeover. Take Iraq for example. Commiting a bunch of human rights violations seems to have caught on in the region and beyond.

[Dissident Dan]

There's no why about it. You serve everything simply by existing.

How? you may ask.

The shadow you cast serves to provide refuge for photophobic microorganisms from the sun. [.....................................]

I think that the question refers to intentionally serving, going out of one's way to serve...

[Foo Fighter]

The problem with patriotism is that it gives an excuse for many to just simply blindly follow.

[Thallium]

I am a patriot for many countries, but I am least patriotic about my own country. If I see myself as Irish, Indian or African, then I am Irish, Indian or African. My idea of patriotism depends on what country I love and support. To take one's own country's party does not always serve well.. That is my idea.

[p-brane]

I think that the question refers to intentionally serving, going out of one's way to serve...

OK Dan, thanks. I think that when one goes out of one's way to make ethical choices with one's energy and one's time and one's cash, one is serving one's country with a high level of efficiency. One is serving one's country in such a way that is unobtrusive, non-invasive and purely harmless to one's country's social, economical and environmental systems.

This sort of ethical patriotism can only lead to the establishment of a better country which, in turn, builds a country that is able to serve neighbouring countries in a similar, ethical manner, as examplified in my former paragraph.

Thanks again!

[motai]

There is an old latin adage that says: Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori (i think that is correct) that translates into "It is sweet and becoming to die for one's country."

Civilians can serve their country, but they take great risk in doing so.

[selfAdjoint]

That Latin line was by Horace, who also bragged about running away from battle (since his position had been in the army opposing the emperor, this was a prudent thing for him to claim).

[motai]

Interesting. Never knew that. Very ironic too.

[jcsd]

There is an old latin adage that says: Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori (i think that is correct) that translates into "It is sweet and becoming to die for one's country."

Civilians can serve their country, but they take great risk in doing so.

Dullce et decorum est pro patria mori, used to be part of my tagline, but I wasn't quoting directly from Horace's Odes, but Wilfred Owen's famous poem from 1917 (Wilfred Owen was a British officer in the Western Front, he himself did actually die for his country as he was killed just one week before the Armistice). Dulce Et Decorum Est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

[p-brane]

I'll maintain that any patriotic action that goes against ethics is treasonous and extremely harming toward one's country.

My definition of ethics would include fighting for the democratic and ethical treatment of others. However, take Iraq, again, for example: how many people were actually in control of the suppression of the Iraqi people? Lets say 1000 big wigs upstairs in the golden shower room with the flat screen. OK. Is it ethical to send in 140,000 people to take down these twisted little sisters that were in power? No. that's unbalanced. Is it less conspicuous and more thermodynamically efficient to send in 1000 Navy Seals to take out these Slag Heap MFing child beaters? Yes. Then what? There is always an ethical choice.

Every unethical/unbalanced action however minute, is the seed to an exponential deterioration of a nation. Every unethical manouver is an unpatriotic one.

[olde drunk]

having lived thru the 60's and 70's i can tell you patriotism can be very confusing. the peacenik's believed they were being patriotic and the hard hats believed they were (hawks and doves). which was more patriotic?????

it always seems to come down to being faithful to oneself. if you believe that your country's action was proper or not, speak up and be active in support of your opinion-- that's being patriotic. being a happy or grumbling citizen and being quiet is not.

regardless, I believe that any kind of military action should be decried as unnecessary. there are always other solutions to social problems. when i grew up getting spanked or whipped for misbehaving didn't cure anything. in fact, i think it made more violent citizens. it is interesting that the flower power - peaceniks - love children came as the first generation to be raised in a more progressive - Dr. Spock - manner. were the 2 sides of the above debate from the two different family styles????

it can be done, it just ain't as easy or quick as paddling the rear end or sending in the troops.

love and peace,
olde drunk

[Royce]

regardless, I believe that any kind of military action should be decried as unnecessary. there are always other solutions to social problems.
love and peace,
olde drunk

While I agree with most of what you said, I do disagree with the above statement. Sometimes war is necessary and sometimes all other alternatives do not turn out to be solutions. A prime example is Nevil Chamberlain's appeasement policy with Hitler and Nazi Germany. Of course its OK to hand over other countries but eventually you run out of other countries to hand over to greedy despots and it is either turn over your own country or go to war.

The same results were poised against the Japanese prior to WW II by both the united States and Britain. Due to all of the demands, sanctions, restrictions and insults received Japan had no choice to knuckle under and give up all of its dreams of expansion and being a world power, its national identity, or go to war.

We as a race of nations are not yet civilized enough to think that war is obsolete and social remedies will solve all of our problems and disputes. What social remedies would you propose to end terrorism, religious and nationalistic fanatics willing to sacrifice their own lives or rather the lives of their young, just to kill noncombatants, women and children?

[honestrosewater]

Belief is desecration when given to be unproven statements for the solace and private pleasure of the believer. It is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-William James, psychologist & philosopher

There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers.
-William James, psychologist & philosopher

These then, are my last words to you; be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help create the fact.
-William James, psychologist & philosopher

Well, a quote taken out of context is a quote taken out of context, but I still think it's interesting. I like James BTW.

[p-brane]

Patriotism as a reality:

Reality is an illusion. The illusion is real.

(by: ?)

Pretty cool quote, I thought.

Yeah there should be another way to freeze up a country that's bent on gassing thousands of civilians or bent on invading another country for resources.

But, for now we use military surgery.

Maybe someday we'll use the Vulcan Mind Meld or Hyper Education for the leaders and civilians of countries... beamed in on Microwaves and enhanced by the neurotransmitters that are produced by the Genetically Modified rice we sold them last decade.

Which would be more ethical? A surruptitious manipulation of a population that sells them on a democratic approach to co-existence? Or, an open war machine rumbling into their Capital?

[olde drunk]

While I agree with most of what you said, I do disagree with the above statement. Sometimes war is necessary and sometimes all other alternatives do not turn out to be solutions. A prime example is Nevil Chamberlain's appeasement policy with Hitler and Nazi Germany. Of course its OK to hand over other countries but eventually you run out of other countries to hand over to greedy despots and it is either turn over your own country or go to war.

The same results were poised against the Japanese prior to WW II by both the united States and Britain. Due to all of the demands, sanctions, restrictions and insults received Japan had no choice to knuckle under and give up all of its dreams of expansion and being a world power, its national identity, or go to war.

We as a race of nations are not yet civilized enough to think that war is obsolete and social remedies will solve all of our problems and disputes. What social remedies would you propose to end terrorism, religious and nationalistic fanatics willing to sacrifice their own lives or rather the lives of their young, just to kill noncombatants, women and children?
this is where this war, as with others, we chose war as a solution to a problem created by our own past sins. how many countries have we tried to influence by supporting a rebel??

we resort to war because we have yet to find the time or leadership to investigate and understand other cultures. we believe that our way is 'THE WAY'. this, to me, is patriotic arrogance and a quick fix (we'll support any change in a country that isn't friendly to us).

it seems that our foreign aid has been used improperly.

my goal is to have our leadership understand that we need to go into these other areas of the world, understand their culture and provide assistance that is not an insult or unnecessary. any terrorist organization recruits from the hungry, helpless and hopeless rank and file of a population. did any of us know how needy Pakistan was before our incursion???

war may not yet be obsolete, but when do you start to change our modus operandi???? we have had at least 5 or 6 small police actions in the brief past 40 years. what have they accomplished???? when do we start to change the established way of doing things???

time has expired on 'my country, right or wrong'. i suggest that patriotism should include 'my country and we will make our wrongs, right'. let's not deny our mistakes. let's learn from them.

love and peace,
olde drunk

[p-brane]

this is where this war, as with others, we chose war as a solution to a problem created by our own past sins. how many countries have we tried to influence by supporting a rebel??

we resort to war because we have yet to find the time or leadership to investigate and understand other cultures. we believe that our way is 'THE WAY'. this, to me, is patriotic arrogance and a quick fix (we'll support any change in a country that isn't friendly to us).

it seems that our foreign aid has been used improperly.

my goal is to have our leadership understand that we need to go into these other areas of the world, understand their culture and provide assistance that is not an insult or unnecessary. any terrorist organization recruits from the hungry, helpless and hopeless rank and file of a population. did any of us know how needy Pakistan was before our incursion???

war may not yet be obsolete, but when do you start to change our modus operandi???? we have had at least 5 or 6 small police actions in the brief past 40 years. what have they accomplished???? when do we start to change the established way of doing things???

time has expired on 'my country, right or wrong'. i suggest that patriotism should include 'my country and we will make our wrongs, right'. let's not deny our mistakes. let's learn from them.

love and peace,
olde drunk

There's a problem with patriotism when you are up against mult-nationalistic forces. They have no identity, per se, no alligence but with that which binds them to profit.

Totally agreed. Keep the skeletons out of the closet so we can study them and avoid repeating whatever insanity stuffed them into the closet in the first place.

As for alternatives to muscling people around (war)... leading by example comes to mind. There's as many solutions are there are consternations.

Thanks.

[Royce]

olde drunk,
I was not referring to this present war against terrorism; and, I again agree with much that you say. Our foriegn policies are and have been deplorable and at times unconsciousable. Nor do I think that the Gulf war nor the Iraq war were justified much less our involvement in the Vietnam War. Most of the wars in this century are due to past foriegn policy mistakes by us, England France, Russia, Germany and on and on and on. It has been arrogance, short sightedness, self interest and lack of understanding and tolerance of cultural differences.
Never the less, since we can't undo the wrongs of the past we as a nation cannot tolerate acts of terrorism or aggresstion against our country and no one can reason nor negotiate with fanatics whether religious or nationalistic.

Since we cannot control the acts or policies of others, sometimes, war is the only alternative. One does not negotiate with a rabid dog, one destroys it, kills it, in a word. Unfortunately in this world turning the other cheek only gets that cheek slapped too. It is the shortcoming of human nature and/or human beings themselves that is the problem.

It is not that we here in the United States are any better or are any more right or have any more responsibility; nor, should we be, nor have any right to, be the policeman for the world.

It is that this is my nation. It is where I and my family live. It is because of this nation that I have what I have. I am a member of this national society and culture and therefore it is part of my moral duty to serve and honor it so long as it serves and honors me and mine. Is that patriotism? To me it is and is why I am a partriot.

To be a member of a society, culture, one is obliged to serve it as it serves him or else it cannot and will not survive. If one were not to serve ones society them he/she/it is a parasite on that society, a liability not an asset.
Thus that society is not, in turn, obliged to serve him/her.
And yes Bob Dylan said it best; "You got to serve somebody." even if it is just yourself and your own self interests.

[olde drunk]

Royce: i do hear you!

sadly, the minute you find "any" justification for any war you perpetuate the cycle. Unfortunately, we perpetuate the idea that intelligent, non-violent solutions are 'weak' and we must never show any weakness.

it is possible that Neville chamberlain did sell out because he wanted to avoid war at any cost. i am not saying that we roll over and play sissy.

we could very easily, cut back our oil dependence and not made the middle east so important. since we value our freedom to drive SUV's more than the cost in human life we had to go in there and make sure that Bin Ladin - Sadam and others didn't shut off the supply that is left. At the same time we give up our individual freedoms to move about, etc via the Patriot Act.

Scuse me!!!! that is the most un-patriotic bill ever passed. we have a bible banging electorate that believes they are on some crusade to save us and the world (no gay rights, no abortion choice, no drugs and if i brush with a SUSPECTED terrorist, i lose my rights).

War is not fun. it is brutality - barbarizism at their worst. you can't win wearing a white hat! let's try to live up to our ideals and seek a PATRIOTIC PEACEFUL SOLUTION to the next crisis.

boy, this is a fine kettle of fish that we've gotten ourselves into - being overly patriotic and not questioning the iraq issue before invasion. sadly, it looks like the scandals will continue until we unwind this mess.

we must change our views of war, viloence, aggression and peace. agressively seeking peaceful solutions feels a lot better than war.

love and peace,
olde drunk

[motai]

the Patriot Act.
Scuse me!!!! that is the most un-patriotic bill ever passed. we have a bible banging electorate that believes they are on some crusade to save us and the world (no gay rights, no abortion choice, no drugs and if i brush with a SUSPECTED terrorist, i lose my rights).

War is not fun. it is brutality - barbarizism at their worst. you can't win wearing a white hat! let's try to live up to our ideals and seek a PATRIOTIC PEACEFUL SOLUTION to the next crisis.

Not since the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus by President Lincoln has there been a bill this bad. The Patriot Act is anything but patriotic to the United States.

olde drunk, it seems to me that as long as this administration is in power there will never be a patriotic peaceful solution... only war.

We will be doomed to repeat the past because the current administration does not understand past crisis. This current Iraq conflict sounds an awful lot like the War of 1812 to me, and its a shame that the lesson needs to be repeated.

[Royce]

My wife and I watched Mark Russell on PBS last weekend. He said that we knew Saadam had weapons of mass distruction. We still have the receipts.

There seem to be two main justifications for war, religion and nationalism. In truth it is all about economics, power and politics.

Is war ever justified? Yes, when in self defense or to curb unbridled armed aggresstion against an ally or weaker or undefended nation that asks the rest of the world for help.

[Adam]

Lawyers, Guns And Money
Written By Warren Zevon

-----------------------

Well, I went home with the waitress
The way I always do
How was I to know
She was with the Russians, too

I was gambling in Havana
I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this

I'm the innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck
Between the rock and the hard place
And I'm down on my luck
And I'm down on my luck
And I'm down on my luck

Now I'm hiding in Honduras
I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns and money
The **** has hit the fan

[fulcrum]

Bertrand Russell once said " Patriotism is a need to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."

Anyone agrees with that?

Also I myself am of the opinion that I will try to elucidate. It is a bit of a little theory I have developed.

In trying to forge alliances and cooperate socially, (which is required for the furthering of the species) we need to become clannish and help each other out, divide labour and do stuff. In being clannish, we first agree on the locations at which we interact with others of the clan. Soon enough, we are happy to be at these locations. Then we decide that somehow, our locations are the only important ones around, because of the simple fact that they support us. When it has been drilled into our heads that we are actually important by the clan, we make no hesitations in supporting in the clan and hence justify our needs to become part of the group.

Conflict ensues with other clans which believe by themselves that they are somehow more important than you (or atleast you happen to think that they believe so) and then choose to show them that you are superior or hold a greater claim to whatever it is you believe to be important - whether it is your land, your resources, etc.

Partiotic struggles in the past have invariably been characterized by a glory of a nation scripted by its "propaganda" men, who could be anyone from a poet who wrote a masterpiece about the clan or some trivialties of it, it could be the great orator who waxed the truths at the heart of the country, who personified it and gave it a character, it could be a scientist who paved the advances in understanding and economy, it could be a military general who won a conflict for the nation...

These clannish behaviours are harnessed in a much larger scale by national politics - a political setup which encumbers upon unknown masses the decisions of their polity and such. Sometimes these masses are forced to concur to the law and sometimes they are given "freedom" to choose. Nationalism an patriotism seem merely a usage of propaganda to effect a polity favourable to some cause. As long as the cause is decided well, I guess things should be okay. But it is when there is too much free will or too much conformism that there is inevitable an unstable situation.

Of course, you should choose whether or not to be patriotic. Like someone else on the thread said, to objectively concur to the policies/matters of a country is a good thing to do. Blind patriotism is dangerous, and blind leaders with patriots under them can potentially do more harm to their nation unwittingly than a psychopath can to his own people. (This is of course because the conflict remains inside the group in the latter case and the conflict is taken outside in the former.)

So patriotism must be chosen carefully - whether you choose to be a patriot or not must depend on everything about your country in relation to others'. Just blindly liking your country is not a fine way to go about it. What do you think?

Also, I have another question - I live in India, and I find it most surprising that a democracy of this size can exist with so much diversity of people. It is something which surprises me each time I think about it and I think there is a kind of balance which is unattainable in some other countries. What are your theories on this? Why do you think it works well at all here? I am asking this because my perspective will not allow me to explain this well enough...I find that this is a reason I like this country, even as I hate it for a lot more. Am I justified, you think?

Thanks for any replies/comments.

[Kerrie]

great thread right before July 4th...

can patriotism be defined also has one being grateful for living in a country that allows more opportunities for indivdiuals then most countries? i am grateful to live in a country that allows free speech, is one of the more wealthy countries in this world, and has many more opportunities (self employment, college, etc) then others. america has it's faults, but don't many countries as well?

[BoulderHead]

Patriotism, nationalism, tribalism.
I have found some relation exists between such things and cannon fodder.

[Dissident Dan]

great thread right before July 4th...

can patriotism be defined also has one being grateful for living in a country that allows more opportunities for indivdiuals then most countries? i am grateful to live in a country that allows free speech, is one of the more wealthy countries in this world, and has many more opportunities (self employment, college, etc) then others. america has it's faults, but don't many countries as well?

I don't think so. I have never heard of patriotism referred to as being grateful.

[cragwolf]

I find patriotism to be a primitive emotion, a subset of follow-the-herd behaviour that has caused such misery in human history. The only patriotism I have is for nice people, for people who treat other people with kindness and respect, no matter what country they come from. I need to find a flag for that.

[loseyourname]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider myself a fairly patriotic American for the simple reason that I believe in the ideals of our founding fathers (their stated ideals, not the ones they actually lived). For the most part, this results in my going against the herd of modern US politics.

[Entropy]

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."


-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor

The second in command of the Third Reich

Need I say more?


Learn to love your country less, and learn to love your enemy more, isn't he the one that needs it the most?

[cragwolf]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider myself a fairly patriotic American for the simple reason that I believe in the ideals of our founding fathers (their stated ideals, not the ones they actually lived).

So you have patriotism for an idea, and not something that actually exists.

[Concept]

Kurt Vonnegut perfectly summed up my feelings on patriotism in Mother Night:

"You hate America, don't you?" she said.
"That would be as silly as loving it," I said. "It's impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn't interest me. It's no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can't think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies. I can't believe that they mark the end or the beginning of anything of real concern to the human soul. Virtues and vices, pleasures and pains cross boundaries at will."

[russ_watters]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider myself a fairly patriotic American for the simple reason that I believe in the ideals of our founding fathers (their stated ideals, not the ones they actually lived). That is, in a nutshell, the definition of patriotism.Kurt Vonnegut perfectly summed up my feelings on patriotism in Mother Night:

"You hate America, don't you?" she said.
"That would be as silly as loving it," I said. "It's impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn't interest me. It's no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can't think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies. I can't believe that they mark the end or the beginning of anything of real concern to the human soul. Virtues and vices, pleasures and pains cross boundaries at will." And Kurt Vonnegut is demonstrating that he doesn't understand patriotism (or nationalism - though the two are often lumped together) at all. Its not ever about a piece of land (not even "Manifest Destiny" or "Liebensraum" was about the land). The reason patriotic Americans are patriotic is because of the Constiution, first and foremost.

[Concept]

Okay, so hypothetically, lets say there was another revolution in the US, a new government ruled, and had a new constitution with different laws. Would a person then have to believe in those ideas to be considered patriotic?

[Entropy]

Really during the American Revolution those who sided with America where called "patriots" and those who sided with Britain where called "loyalists." Don't those sound a little too similar?

[russ_watters]

Okay, so hypothetically, lets say there was another revolution in the US, a new government ruled, and had a new constitution with different laws. Would a person then have to believe in those ideas to be considered patriotic? Certainly. Exactly like a current German patriot must reject Naziism. You can't very well be patriotic toward something that doesn't exist. Really during the American Revolution those who sided with America where called "patriots" and those who sided with Britain where called "loyalists." Don't those sound a little too similar? Yes, but there is an important historical context: at the time, America was semi-independent colonies and developed separately from England. The ideals born of the American revolution are American ideals and thus those who believe in them are American patriots.

[Concept]

Certainly. Exactly like a current German patriot must reject Naziism. You can't very well be patriotic toward something that doesn't exist.
but a German living under Nazi Germany would have been unpatriotic for being against it?

[Njorl]

but a German living under Nazi Germany would have been unpatriotic for being against it?

Not necessarily. First, most Germans were not Nazis. If there is some entity more genuinely representitive of the nation than the government, it is not unpatriotic to support that entity. The men who tried to assassinate Hitler did so because they believed he was destroying Germany. They acted against the state, but for the nation. There is a difference between nations and states. Patriotism is generally toward the nation.

Njorl

[Concept]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider myself a fairly patriotic American for the simple reason that I believe in the ideals of our founding fathers (their stated ideals, not the ones they actually lived). For the most part, this results in my going against the herd of modern US politics.


Not necessarily. First, most Germans were not Nazis. If there is some entity more genuinely representitive of the nation than the government, it is not unpatriotic to support that entity. The men who tried to assassinate Hitler did so because they believed he was destroying Germany. They acted against the state, but for the nation. There is a difference between nations and states. Patriotism is generally toward the nation.



These two ideas are contradictory then. As loseyourname pointed out, the majority of Americans don't fully support the ideals of the founders. Especially after 9/11, the majority supported some encroachment on civil liberties that the founders would have completely opposed. If you're not talking about majority opinion when you refer to "the entity," then what are you referring to? If you are referring to majority opinion, then cragwolf was correct in asserting that patriotism is nothing more than "follow-the-herd" mentality. If you're talking about "the entity" as what a person percieves as the best interests of the people, then what is and isn't patriotic is reduced to total subjectivity.

Also, if you agree with the idea of being patriotic because you agree with the ideas the country was founded on, would you be equally patriotic to another country founded on the same ideas?

[russ_watters]

but a German living under Nazi Germany would have been unpatriotic for being against it? Yes, but with the caveat that the Nazi governemnt siezed power illegally. They could still consider themselves patriots toward the rightful government of Germany. (Njorl's post) These two ideas are contradictory then. As loseyourname pointed out, the majority of Americans don't fully support the ideals of the founders. What does "fully support" mean? The US constitution is relatively unique in that it is designed to evolve. The fundamental concepts, including the concept of trading freedom for safety, haven't changed. Also, if you agree with the idea of being patriotic because you agree with the ideas the country was founded on, would you be equally patriotic to another country founded on the same ideas? Maybe if you have dual citizenship, but the definition is quite clear that patriotism is what you feel towards your country.

[Njorl]

I don't think l.y.n. and I are necessarily contradicting eachother.

I don't think national identity is defined by the opinions of a plurality of those alive today. It is defined instead, by the journey that brought those people to the beliefs they have. Our national identity is defined by the founding fathers stated beliefs. It is also defined by the enslavement of millions of people. It is also defined by the war that freed those people, and the repurcussions of that war. It is defined by the acceptance of immigrants from all over the world to live as equals. It is the brutal economic exploitation of those immigrants, and their struggle for genuine democratic power.

Patriotism is not a love just for the country, or it's government or it's people. It is not really love at all. It is an embrace of the national heritage as a whole.

So, rather than "My country, right or wrong!" it is, "My nation, warts and all."

It is entirely possible for two patriots to disagree on the merits of a course of action which their country's government is taking.

Njorl

[BoulderHead]

I don’t mind someone holding to their own view of patriotism, or even that a given definition is not commonly found in a dictionary. While I could suggest a common definition would be useful for discussion I think patriotism means different things to different people, so it’s not a real issue to me that disagreement takes place. What I do take issue with is claiming to hold the true definition, especially so if said definition is uncommon. This is what I see at least two posters doing in this thread and the reason it is bankrupt is that you are essentially denying to others the same privilege you allow yourself.

[russ_watters]

So, rather than "My country, right or wrong!" it is, "My nation, warts and all." Minor nitpick (we're pretty much in agreement), but don't those two mean the same thing?What I do take issue with is claiming to hold the true definition, especially so if said definition is uncommon. This is what I see at least two posters doing in this thread and the reason it is bankrupt is that you are essentially denying to others the same privilege you allow yourself. And I take issue with the opposite (hmm...reading again, maybe its not the opposite of what you are saying): people distorting or obfuscating the definition for their own nefarious purposes. Most commonly, this means equating patriotism with nationalism.

[BoulderHead]

Russ,
Do we see the statements posted by Njorl in a similar vien;
So, rather than "My country, right or wrong!" it is, "My nation, warts and all."
To me, this is Nationalism, not Patriotism.

[Gökhan]

Hi,

I think it dishonours and caricatures this forum that the concept of patriotism gets so much attention here...
Especially regarding history, without much philosophical strain, we should come to the recognition that patriotism has totally disqualified for getting any serious intellectual attention...

[russ_watters]

To me, this is Nationalism, not Patriotism. What difference (if any) do you consider there to be between patriotism and nationalism and how exactly do you interpret his quotes?

[BoulderHead]

What difference (if any) do you consider there to be between patriotism and nationalism and how exactly do you interpret his quotes?
Ok, this will be my last post until I'm not sure when, and my mind is not clear but here goes anyway. Remember saying this;
….but don't those two mean the same thing?
Well, I’m of similar mind with you here because this was my reaction to that statement also. This is ‘my country, blah blah blah…’ (no offence to Njorl meant with those blahs, btw) and this to me is more to do with nationalism than patriotism. Like you, Russ, I tie patriotism to ideals. Unlike you, I do not boldly proclaim to hold the ‘true’ definition, but merely state to hold my own definition (knowing it isn't to be found in any dictionary :wink: ).
Now, the connection between ideals and the Government, State, Nation, or whatever else you care to tie it to is still unanswered. It may be that we will not be able to agree on the connection, I do not yet know. But I will say this much about my definition/view on Patriotism; I hold it to be a set of ideals first and foremost. There is a connection of said ideals to a nation, but without any doubt if the nation should divorce itself from these ideals due to irreconcilable differences, hehe, I hold the patriot must divorce (their allegiance) from that nation. I do not believe a nationalist would follow foot, though I also believe a nationalist is more than an individual who simply believes in; “my country right or wrong”.
For someone who believes in ideals I do not see an allowance, other than wishful thinking, for allegiance to a nation which does not share them. What I’m inclined to see is a fork in the road at this point, where the patriot becomes merely an individual with his ideals or else becomes a nationalist pretending to be a patriot. But, I am also prepared to consider arguments for a nationless patriot, haha.

[Njorl]

I think there is a difference between "right or wrong" and "warts and all". The difference lies in the context in which they were originally used.

"My country right or wrong" means I will support my country in doing the wrong thing if my country decides to do the wrong thing. That is nationalism.

"Warts and all" merely implies an acceptance of what is. It does not imply approval of the "warts". If my country chooses to do wrong, I will oppose that wrong, but still be proud to be part of my country, despite the wrong. I will not deny that the wrong exists, or that it is wrong. That is patriotism.

Njorl

[russ_watters]

Unlike you, I do not boldly proclaim to hold the ‘true’ definition, but merely state to hold my own definition (knowing it isn't to be found in any dictionary :wink: ). Maybe I'm just simple, but I don't consider it to be bold (or profound) to believe you can find a reasonable definition in a dictionary. "My country right or wrong" means I will support my country in doing the wrong thing if my country decides to do the wrong thing. That is nationalism. I'd heard the quote before, but I guess I wasn't aware of the context.

edit: Found the context. HERE (http://www.progressivewritersbloc.com/BB/Patriotism.htm) is an interesting link. But I'm still not sure what is meant by the quote.

Another (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?010504).

[loseyourname]

There is a connection of said ideals to a nation, but without any doubt if the nation should divorce itself from these ideals due to irreconcilable differences, hehe, I hold the patriot must divorce (their allegiance) from that nation. I do not believe a nationalist would follow foot, though I also believe a nationalist is more than an individual who simply believes in; “my country right or wrong”. For someone who believes in ideals I do not see an allowance, other than wishful thinking, for allegiance to a nation which does not share them.

I don't see it this way at all. When my nation betrays the ideals on which it was founded, I do not support the men responsible, but I continue to love and support the nation itself and do whatever I can to bring the government back in line with those ideals that I hold dear.

[russ_watters]

I don't see it this way at all. When my nation betrays the ideals on which it was founded, I do not support the men responsible, but I continue to love and support the nation itself and do whatever I can to bring the government back in line with those ideals that I hold dear. I agree with this interpretation of patriotism and its why I'm still not sure how to read the Decatur quote. I think the Decatur quote could fit that. The full quote: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." Decatur acknowledges the possibility that the country could be wrong. Could a nationalist do that? And does "...our country, right or wrong" mean he still loves his country when its wrong or still follows the country when its wrong? Still loving it when its wrong is compatible with patriotism - still following it is not.

I think it could be interpreted either way.

[BoulderHead]

Maybe I'm just simple, but I don't consider it to be bold (or profound) to believe you can find a reasonable definition in a dictionary.

In that case I ask you to show a dictionary definition supporting your particular brand of patriotism and I may concede the point. If not, you must concede.

[BoulderHead]

I don't see it this way at all. When my nation betrays the ideals on which it was founded, I do not support the men responsible, but I continue to love and support the nation itself and do whatever I can to bring the government back in line with those ideals that I hold dear.
Note that I did not say it merely 'betrayed'. I said it divorced itself from them with irreconcilable differences. Also, I expressed 'wishful thinking' to describe those beating a dead horse. If there is going to be any substantial difference between a patriot and a nationalist then I have indicated where I draw the line. Your willingness to continue loving the nation itself even after it has divorced itself from the ideals you hold making it worthy of support is, for all practical purposes, little more than nationalism. Nationalists themselves are not without ideals, you know.

[russ_watters]

In that case I ask you to show a dictionary definition supporting your particular brand of patriotism and I may concede the point. If not, you must concede. Patriotism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patriotism)
Love of and devotion to one's country.

[and]

Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country But here, of course, is where the problems arise: people disagree on what it means to love and be devoted to your country. IMO, that's mostly a problem with people not learning ethics/morality. Most people think devotion means never questioning. In fact, most people think the military is designed that way: blindly follow orders. The reality (today anyway) is precisely the opposite. I was taught it is your duty to point out the errors of your peers so they can fix them (in boot camp, it was driven home by the simplistic act of inspecting your roommate's uniform and helping him fix flaws before leaving the room).

So for patriotism, "devotion" does not mean blindly following your country, it means you are duty bound to help fix the flaws in your country. The old adage "if you don't vote, you can't complain" I take a step further: if you don't vote, you're being unpatriotic.

[russ_watters]

Your willingness to continue loving the nation itself even after it has divorced itself from the ideals you hold making it worthy of support is, for all practical purposes, little more than nationalism. Someone brought up the drunken mother interpretation of the Decatur quote before. Flip it around: when you screwed up as a kid and your mother punished you, did she ever tell you she didn't love you anymore? Why or why not?

edit: ugh, I'm getting annoyed, so I'll answer it for you: Of course not! Its something our society has forgotten and its a big problem (witness the 50% divorce rate) - love means never giving up.

[BoulderHead]

Patriotism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patriotism)
But here, of course, is where the problems arise: people disagree on what it means to love and be devoted to your country. IMO, that's mostly a problem with people not learning ethics/morality. Most people think devotion means never questioning. In fact, most people think the military is designed that way: blindly follow orders. The reality (today anyway) is precisely the opposite. I was taught it is your duty to point out the errors of your peers so they can fix them (in boot camp, it was driven home by the simplistic act of inspecting your roommate's uniform and helping him fix flaws before leaving the room).

So for patriotism, "devotion" does not mean blindly following your country, it means you are duty bound to help fix the flaws in your country. The old adage "if you don't vote, you can't complain" I take a step further: if you don't vote, you're being unpatriotic.
Well, it can be seen that no mention of ideals is directly given, and that is exactly my point. You are in effect arguing to have the correct definition of 'love' in this particular case, which is a sideways approach. The truth even in this case is that you are not qualified to judge for others the definition of love.

[BoulderHead]

Someone brought up the drunken mother interpretation of the Decatur quote before. Flip it around: when you screwed up as a kid and your mother punished you, did she ever tell you she didn't love you anymore? Why or why not?

edit: ugh, I'm getting annoyed, so I'll answer it for you: Of course not! Its something our society has forgotten and its a big problem (witness the 50% divorce rate) - love means never giving up.
The argument for patriotism is now being rooted in emotions like love, instead of ideals.

[BoulderHead]

I say if no substantial difference is to exist between patriotism and nationalism, then the matter renders to little more than word play. Too much emotion, too little substance.

[russ_watters]

The argument for patriotism is now being rooted in emotions like love, instead of ideals. [separate post]

Well, it can be seen that no mention of ideals is directly given, and that is exactly my point. You are in effect arguing to have the correct definition of 'love' in this particular case, which is a sideways approach. The truth even in this case is that you are not qualified to judge for others the definition of love. You're missing the point - it has always been love/devotion (though only recently a question over the definition of love/devotion). The question from the begining was love/devotion to what? This whole discussion from the beginning of where it turned to patriotism can be boiled down to 'what is a country? - and what does it mean to love it?' Scroll back and re-read the Kurt Vonnegut quote and my response (page 3).I say if no substantial difference is to exist between patriotism and nationalism, then the matter renders to little more than word play. [emphasis added] Maybe I'm missing something now, but this is basically a conversation about a definition. How could it not be "word play"?

[russ_watters]

Might as well bring this out: Nationalism: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism) 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination. With 3 definitions, nationalism is more complicated that patriotism, yet ironically (but to me, unsurprisingly) patriotism is where all the arguments are. As I said before, it is IMO, because of a desire to mis-label patriotism as nationalism to serve a political end.

[Royce]

I am a patriot. I love and am devoted to my country. I also love and am devoted to my wife, children and grandchildren; yet, I do not think that they are always right, I do not think they are perfect. Sometimes they annoy the hell out of me and sometimes they make me mad as hell; but, I do not stop loving them or stop being devoted to them

I am also, to a degree, a nationalist. I believe that the USA is a sovereign country and its borders and citizens are sacrosanct. Anyone who attacks or threatens my country or fellow citizens are attacking me as well as my country and we have an obligation to defend our country as well as our safety, liberty and way of life. We do not have the right or obligation as individuals or as a country to act aggressively against any other person or country. That is one example of the difference between nationalism and patriotism.

There is also an intrinsic difference between nation, government and political party in or out of power. The Nazi's were a political party who were in power in Germany. They were not Germany the country, nation or people, they were a political party that came to power illegally because there was a power vacuum at the time. One could love Germany the country and the people and hate the Nazi's and still be a patriot of Germany.

I am a register Republican and hated the Clinton administration; but, I was still a patriot. I also hate some of the things that the Bush administration has done and is doing; but I am still Republican and a patriot.

[loseyourname]

Well, it can be seen that no mention of ideals is directly given, and that is exactly my point. You are in effect arguing to have the correct definition of 'love' in this particular case, which is a sideways approach. The truth even in this case is that you are not qualified to judge for others the definition of love.

Well, he is certainly qualified to say what he means when he uses the word "love," and I will say that I'm pretty sure I mean exactly the same thing. Love does not mean acceptance, it does not mean support, and it does not mean a willingness to follow. Love does mean devotion, love does mean patience, and love does not mean the willingness to step in and set things straight when that needs to be done.

The argument for patriotism is now being rooted in emotions like love, instead of ideals.

It is a love of a nation founded on certain ideals.

You're looking at this the wrong way if you think love is an emotion. There is certainly an emotional component to it. I won't argue that, and to say that you can love without emotion is to deny one's own humanity. But love is not primarily an emotion. Love is not putting on blinders and following the divining rod of fickle impulse. Love is a conscious act of will, the will to do that which is reasoned to be in the best interest of the beloved party, with only secondary regard to the consequence on self.

Emotionally speaking, I quite often hate this country. I hate watching Bush stumble over his words and display the IQ of a sewer rat. I hated watching Clinton lie bold-faced to the nation he was sworn to serve. But these are only men, and it is not men that I love.

I say if no substantial difference is to exist between patriotism and nationalism, then the matter renders to little more than word play. Too much emotion, too little substance.

The United States was the first nation founded on the natural rights of men, designed in such a way that if the constitution is upheld, there can never be tyranny. There is no way to logically derive a right or an ideal, so I suppose you are right to say that at some point, one must lean on nothing more than gut instinct. Perhaps the ethic that this nation is built on, though a product of the Age of Reason, is itself built on emotion. Perhaps that is the case with all ethics. I will hold that, nonetheless, even you hold fast to some ideal or other, that even you live your life according to some set of ethics that is no more logically derived, and thus no more substantial, than mine or Russ' or Royce's.

The difference that I can see between nationalism and patriotism is that nationalism is primarily an allegiance to a certain people, bound by common heritage and common culture rather than by common ideals. Just about every other nation on this planet was founded by one ethnic group on the notion that only that group would have favored status in that nation. Only a Frenchman can rule France, and only an Englishman can rule England. Though this is almost never still the case in any first-world country, the nationalist allegiance remains primarily to the people with which is shared a common heritage. This is not the case with patriotism. Ethnically speaking, there is no such thing as an American people. There is only the American ideal. It is this ideal that I hold to be the best way to operate a state, and it is this ideal that I claim as my own. For that, I call myself a patriot.

If you want to continue arguing semantics, then feel free. If you don't think this qualifies me as a patriot, or if you think this qualifies me as a nationalist, then so be it. Call me what you will. My position has been explained so that you now know what I mean when I call myself a patriot.

[wasteofo2]

For the hell of it, I'll throw some more quotes about patriotism made by great Americans into the argument.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
- Thomas Jefferson

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government.
- Thomas Paine

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
- Samuel Adams

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- Theodore Roosevelt

These guys seem to think that Patriotism means love for/standing up for the ideals of one's country, not neccesarily how the country's going. Keeping the government honest, shaking it up when it starts heading in the wrong direction etc. seem to be the qualities of patriots to these men, and I'm inclined to agree.

[BoulderHead]

BoulderHead;
Well, it can be seen that no mention of ideals is directly given, and that is exactly my point. You are in effect arguing to have the correct definition of 'love' in this particular case, which is a sideways approach. The truth even in this case is that you are not qualified to judge for others the definition of love.

loseyourname;
Well, he is certainly qualified to say what he means when he uses the word "love," and I will say that I'm pretty sure I mean exactly the same thing.
Huh? I never once argued he wasn’t! However, he argued someone else was not, then failed to adequately prove his case. I take from your statement we are in agreement my complaint was justified (else I would require you defend the actual position I attacked).

If you want to continue arguing semantics, then feel free.
I stand against this statement for the following;
First, anytime someone makes a declarative statement in the manner russ_watters did, it is not arguing semantics to demand a solid support.
Second, there was no retraction or modification proffered.
Third, sufficient ‘proof’ was not established.
Finally, I suggest where semantics came into play was in the attempt to justify denying one understanding of the word ‘patriotism’ by arguing, for a proof, the subjective definition associated with the word ‘love’, which at best can only show there may exist room for an alternative interpretation which does not at all demonstrate falsity of the other, lol.

If you don't think this qualifies me as a patriot, or if you think this qualifies me as a nationalist, then so be it. Call me what you will.
Huh? I am not concerning myself with your ‘qualifications’, nor has this been intended as an excuse to call anyone what I will. If I have come across in such a way I regret it. I put forth an incomplete ‘opinion’ about patriotism, true, but my aim was not to sort and rank others according to my own definition but to demand a worthy proof from anyone proclaiming to hold such a proper definition of patriotism that alternative definings should be written off as 'misunderstandings'. In the process of this I have suggested if nothing substantial exists to differentiate the words nationalism and patriotism, triviality ensues.

Now, I prefer my own ‘partial’ definition because I feel in demanding a patriot reject allegiance from a State/Nation which will no longer support the ideals he/she cherishes, a genuine discernment between the two might be seen. I could be mistaken in this assumption however, as many of the qualities stated as belonging to patriotism I do not see as being impossible to attribute to a nationalist. Additionally, if in each and every instance a patriot can be seen tying his nationalist buddies’ shoes in boot camp and then following him down into a cannon barrel, I cannot help but see an opportunity lost for telling one from the other. This was one idea I wished to express, but not everything. To be honest, it isn’t patriotism, but nationalism that I primarily see being pigeonholed and under/improperly explained (I am often guilty of this myself).

My position has been explained so that you now know what I mean when I call myself a patriot.
Thank you for taking the time (notice I had done likewise prior). Having a ‘position’ is fine, explaining the position is even better. It is not a position, but a proclamation that I took issue with, which has led to the bulk of my involvement here.

[russ_watters]

Finally, I suggest where semantics came into play was in the attempt to justify denying one understanding of the word ‘patriotism’ by arguing, for a proof, the subjective definition associated with the word ‘love’, which at best can only show there may exist room for an alternative interpretation which does not at all demonstrate falsity of the other, lol. By "understanding" you mean the definition - isn't that what semantics is?? That statement is redundant.

My point is simply that people tend to make this a semantic argument because they want to avoid giving patriotism an objective definition. If an objective definition can be agreed upon, then the word can no longer be manipulated for nefarious purposes. The cliche "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is precisly the same purposeful, nefarious obfuscation.

[BoulderHead]

By "understanding" you mean the definition - isn't that what semantics is?? That statement is redundant.
This isn’t the first time I have fallen asleep at the wheel, lol, but back on point;

My point is simply that people tend to make this a semantic argument because they want to avoid giving patriotism an objective definition.
You mean by this a definition that you personally can agree with?
If an objective definition can be agreed upon, then the word can no longer be manipulated for nefarious purposes.Well, my point (the one you seem to be ignoring) is that precisely because no such ‘objective’ definition is agreed upon, your claim lacks a foundation. Would you care to comment on this, because it was in fact what I was attempting to point out from the beginning?

[vanesch]

Why be patriotic? What is the point?

It is probably the same attitude that we've been evolutionary selected for as fidelity to the clan, defending your family etc... because clans which were composed of such members a) had a better chance of survival and b) usually don't support members that do not act that way so reinforce the selection artificially. In a small clan, moreover, it IS a useful practice to get your genetic stuff easier in the next generation because clan members are usually all related in some way. In a group the size of a country, this is no longer true, but the reflexes are still there.

cheers,
Patrick.

[russ_watters]

You mean by this a definition that you personally can agree with?

Well, my point (the one you seem to be ignoring) is that precisely because no such ‘objective’ definition is agreed upon, your claim lacks a foundation. Would you care to comment on this, because it was in fact what I was attempting to point out from the beginning? I'm not ignoring your point, I'm just not accepting it: Why is it that for most words in the dictionary, people accept objective definitions with no argument? Why, for some words, do people not agree that there even is an objective definition, much less on what that definition is? Why did Bill Clinton question the definition of the word "is"? Heck, for a word like patriotism, some people won't even say they themselves have a constant definition. IMO, some words, like patriotism, are so useful in politics that people manipulate the definition for their own nefarious purposes.

To elaborate, the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" actually has a three-fold implication to those who use it:

1. Different people can reasonably use different definitions for some words.
2. By implication, that means there is no objective definition for some words.
3. And the nefarious part - if pressed, people who use that phrase will claim it is ok for one person to use different definitions for the same word in different circumstances. If there is no objective definition, a word can mean whatever I want, whenever I want it to.

That's the part I think you're missing, boulder. Quibbling over the exact definition of patriotism is besides the point to me. Its a difficult word to define (or perhaps just apply) and I never said it wasn't. But taking the step from 'difficult to define' to 'doesn't have a definition so I can use it however I want' doesn't fly with me.

I took a course in college called "nations and nationalism." If I had told my prof I was going to use the words "nationalism" and "patriotism" interchangeably because it suited me to do so, what do you think my prof would have done?

[BoulderHead]

I'm not ignoring your point, I'm just not accepting it:…
Hmmm, let me put this into proper context; I have not been putting forth something for you to either accept or reject, I have been asking you to show proof for your statement that Mr. does not understand what patriotism is, else retract your charge against him, nothing more. You have admitted difficulty in defining the word, which all the more strongly raises the question of what, then, makes his definition incorrect?

[russ_watters]

....I have been asking you to show proof for your statement that Mr. does not understand what patriotism is, else retract your charge against him, nothing more. Looking back through the thread, I can't figure out who "Mr." is or what my charge was against him.

[BoulderHead]

Looking back through the thread, I can't figure out who "Mr." is or what my charge was against him.

Here it is;
And Kurt Vonnegut is demonstrating that he doesn't understand patriotism (or nationalism - though the two are often lumped together) at all.

[russ_watters]

That's all this is about? The Kurt Vonnegut quote? Jeez, what a waste of time this has been. The Kurt Vonnegut quote focused on borders and chunks of land. Nowhere in any definition of Patriotism I posted does it say anything about loving a chunk of land - and you have never argued that it should.

If you want to argue that patriotism can mean absolutely anything anyone wants it to mean, fine: Yesterday, I drove my patriotism to the patriotism and on the way there, I hit a patriotism and got a flat patriotsim. What a pain in the patriotism that was! Do you really want absolute discretion in how one is permitted to define a word?

There is plenty of ambiguity on how you apply love/devotion - plenty of cases where its difficult to reconcile the two, and though that's the more interesting discusion, its irrelevant to the question of whether patriotism is about land.

Are you just looking for an argument here? You've never cited the Vonnegut quote before post 74 (and not by name until just now) or asked me to justify my opinion of it.

[BoulderHead]

Are you just looking for an argument here? You've never cited the Vonnegut quote before post 74 (and not by name until just now) or asked me to justify my opinion of it.
You attacked it, I complained, you attempted a defense, etc. What did you think started this whole mess? Please read the following;


BoulderHead;
What I do take issue with is claiming to hold the true definition, especially so if said definition is uncommon. This is what I see at least two posters doing in this thread and the reason it is bankrupt is that you are essentially denying to others the same privilege you allow yourself.

russ_watters;
And I take issue with the opposite (hmm...reading again, maybe its not the opposite of what you are saying): people distorting or obfuscating the definition for their own nefarious purposes. Most commonly, this means equating patriotism with nationalism.
Was I mistaken in believing you were applying this to Vonnegut, and if so, what was possibly said in this entire thread to prompt you to respond as you did to what I said? Personally, I think it was quite transparent you were rejecting his quote, and even ascribing ‘nefarious purposes’ to him, or at least others, should they have a different understanding of patriotism than you. At first it struck me that you were touching on conspiracy theory with this charge, but I didn’t want to delve into that, but I did notice you never put forth anything in the way of a proof.

That's all this is about? The Kurt Vonnegut quote? Jeez, what a waste of time this has been. The Kurt Vonnegut quote focused on borders and chunks of land. Nowhere in any definition of Patriotism I posted does it say anything about loving a chunk of land - and you have never argued that it should.
Nowhere did it say anything about ideals, lol. I don’t want this to be a waste of time for you, but if you believe Vonnegut is mistaken for the reason given above then I think you know nothing about patriotism. What's more, I’m going to attempt support for holding this view starting with my next post.

If you want to argue that patriotism can mean absolutely anything anyone wants it to mean, fine: Yesterday, I drove my patriotism to the patriotism and on the way there, I hit a patriotism and got a flat patriotism. What a pain in the patriotism that was! Do you really want absolute discretion in how one is permitted to define a word?
There you go misrepresenting my position again; I’m not arguing patriotism can mean absolutely anything, but it seems you are, lol. You present your definition as if it were a fact, throwing little ‘nefarious’ aspersions around in the process, invoking fears of school teacher disapproval, etc, but you can neither defend your statement against Mr. Vonnegut’s interpretation or show ‘objective’ (to borrow a phrase) proof that your interpretation is in fact the correct one. In short, I am left to conclude your charge of “people distorting or obfuscating the definition for their own nefarious purposes” was/is bogus.


There is plenty of ambiguity on how you apply love/devotion - plenty of cases where its difficult to reconcile the two, and though that's the more interesting discusion, its irrelevant to the question of whether patriotism is about land.
Well, it isn’t irrelevant at all and I hope to successfully demonstrate as much in my next post.

[russ_watters]

You attacked it, I complained, you attempted a defense, etc. What did you think started this whole mess? Please read the following; Where in that quote do you specifically mention Vonnegut?
Was I mistaken in believing you were applying this to Vonnegut, Certainly, since you never once cited the Vonnegut quote or the idea of territory belonging in the definition of patriotism. In fact, in the very next post (54), you cited Njorl's quote. ...and if so, what was possibly said in this entire thread to prompt you to respond as you did to what I said? Well, you specifically cited something Njorl said and I specifically responded to it. I guess if you wanted the conversation to center around the Vonnegut quote, you should have cited it specifically. I would have responded to it specifically. Personally, I think it was quite transparent you were rejecting his quote, Meaning what? I reject his quote because it bears no resemblence whatsoever to the definition of patriotism. Even if you want to leave the definition open for interpretation, nothing even suggested allows for that interpretation. and even ascribing ‘nefarious purposes’ to him, or at least others, should they have a different understanding of patriotism than you. At first it struck me that you were touching on conspiracy theory with this charge, but I didn’t want to delve into that, but I did notice you never put forth anything in the way of a proof. I've been quite explicit here: people manipulate definitions for nefarious purposes. Its virtually axiomatic: the motiviation to attach a negative connotation to a word that in the dictionary has a positive connotation can only be nefarious. The quote I've cited several times, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is used by terrorists and their supporters as a justification of terrorism. Similarly, people like Vonnegut distort the definition of patriotism because it allows them to say bad things about people who consider themselves patriots. Its easy. Watch:

-Nazis(fascists) were nationalists.
-Patriots are nationalists.
-Therefore, patriots are Nazis(fascists).
Nowhere did it say anything about ideals, lol. Since the definition of an "ideal" is "An honorable or worthy principle or aim," it would be reduntand to include it in the definition of "patriotism." And anyway, you said before that you, like me, tie patriotism to ideals. Clearly Vonnegut does not. Based on that, shouldn't you agree that Vonnegut's idea of patriotism is flawed?There you go misrepresenting my position again; I’m not arguing patriotism can mean absolutely anything, Well then lets have it: now that we agree there are limits on how you can use the word, you tell me what the specific constraints are on the definition of the word "patriotism."

[BoulderHead]

First, I point out that you claimed the following;
The biggest problem with patriotism is though it has a specific definition, many people choose to ignore the definition for political reasons. Those quotes you posted were posted by people who choose to ignore the definition of patriotism - clearly, they do not fit the definition you posted.
Here you have stated patriotism has a specific definition, but you fail to illuminate the reader what it might be.

Next, honestrosewater naturally asks you to define patriotism, but you ignore the request, then define nationalism instead, lol;
honestrosewater;
I hate to be so predictable, but could you define patriotism?

russ_watters;
Predictable or not, letting someone manipulate a definition for their own purposes is bad as being the one who manipulates it. Good catch.

And to take care of the obvious direction of this thread:

"nationalism

n 1: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: patriotism]
2: the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation."

Though subtle, that difference is critical and often overlooked for the sake of convenience (convenience of manipulation).

Here you speak of a subtle, but critical difference between nationalism and an as yet undefined patiotism. At this point in the conversation it would have required an ability to mind read to know what that difference might be (or did you just assume reasonable people must agree with you?).

Afterwards, another member offers a definition and you announce ‘that’s it in a nutshell’.
loseyourname;
I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider myself a fairly patriotic American for the simple reason that I believe in the ideals of our founding fathers (their stated ideals, not the ones they actually lived).

russ_watters
That is, in a nutshell, the definition of patriotism.
Now, let me be clear with this; you first state that patriotism has a specific definition, then state the above is, in fact, ‘it’. You also state that a dictionary is not an unreasonable place to find a definition. The trouble, of course, is that the dictionary is totally silent when it comes to any mention of ideals, which means, in a nut shell, the specific definition is not what you claim it is! Going further, the only way patriotism, as seen in the dictionary, can actually be made to fit your belief is by giving it an arbitrary definition, which is precisely what I said you were doing a post or two ago!

I have stated the only problem I have in someone doing just such a thing is only when they begin to proclaim their definition is right and anyone not in agreement must be wrong. This is precisely what I see you doing, and I wonder whether you are so enamored of your own view that you cannot consider any another.

Now, please consider this;
Quibbling over the exact definition of patriotism is besides the point to me. Its a difficult word to define (or perhaps just apply) and I never said it wasn't.
Why would quibbling over ‘exact definition’ be a difficulty if patriotism has a ‘specific definition ???
Lately, it has gone from having a specific (exact?) definition to being “a difficult word to define…” Well, at least we’re making progress, right? I think it a pity any of this should have required my participation. There is also what ought to be seen as a rather obvious question that has neither been asked, or answered; if patriotism were in the first place to have meant what you think it does, then why isn’t it worded in dictionaries to reflect same? I mean, just specifically and exactly how hard would it have been to alter one or two words such that I could honestly say; yes, Russ, you are absolutely correct; not only is there a specific definition, but it is precisely the one you claim it it to be?!

[BoulderHead]

If patriotism is so very different from nationalism, as you have claimed, then why do I find in those links you provided, the following;

patriotism
n : love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: nationalism]

nationalism
n 1: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: patriotism]

:smile:

synonymous

\Syn*on"y*mous\, a. [Gr. ?; sy`n with, together + ?, ?, name. See Syn-, and Name.] Having the character of a synonym; expressing the same thing; conveying the same, or approximately the same, idea. -- Syn*on\"y*mous*ly, adv.

These words consist of two propositions, which are not distinct in sense, but one and the same thing variously expressed; for wisdom and understanding are synonymous words here. --Tillotson.

:smile:

*Oh, I hope this won't cause the patriots to take up arms, :tongue2: *

[BoulderHead]

Well, you specifically cited something Njorl said and I specifically responded to it. I guess if you wanted the conversation to center around the Vonnegut quote, you should have cited it specifically. I would have responded to it specifically.
Yes, I wish to acknowledge the mistake, my apologies. I must have thought you were capable of reading my mind, haha, but perhaps you were not. I would like soon to defend The Vonnegut definition, however, as I think it fits nicely enough with the ‘specific’ definition.

Since the definition of an "ideal" is "An honorable or worthy principle or aim," it would be reduntand to include it in the definition of "patriotism."
This is nonsense which I suspect can only make sense when argued from within an existing belief, and therefore circular.


Some other parts of your last post should be addressed in a forthcoming ‘Point 3’

[BoulderHead]

I reject his quote because it bears no resemblence whatsoever to the definition of patriotism. Even if you want to leave the definition open for interpretation, nothing even suggested allows for that interpretation.
Really?


Considering Vonnegut’s age (born in 1922, served in WWII), he would not have had access to Dictionary.com definitions. It would, therefore, be prudent to examine some definitions which existed during his youth, since the meanings of words do in fact change over the course of time, even while many people do not.

================================
From my 1945 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary;

Country
1. A region or tract of land; a district.
2. The territory of a nation.
3. The land of a person’s birth or adoption, to which he owes his allegiance; fatherland.
4. The people of a state or district; the nation.
5. Rural regions, as opposed to a city or town.
6. Law. A jury; - so called because originally the jury was a body of men chosen from the country or neighborhood, a jury trial being called trial by the country, and the litigants being said to put themselves upon the, or their, country.


Nation
1. A people connected by supposed ties of blood generally manifested by community of language, religion, customs, etc.
2. Any aggregation of people having like institutions and customs and a sense of social homogeneity and mutual interest.
3. The body of inhabitants of a country united under a single independent government; a state.
4. A multitude; host.
5. One of a group of Indian tribes; as, the Six Nations.


State
7. The bodies that constitute the legislature of a country; estates.
8. A Political body, or body politic; any body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government, esp. one that is not subject to external control.
9. any of a number of commonwealths, or bodies politic, constituting a sovereign state (in sense 8) by their union, as in the United States.
10. Territory or government of a state (sense 8 or 9).
11. The entity collectively constituted the body politic, territory, and government of a state; as, the Department of State.

===========================

As I believe Njorl pointed out, there is a difference between a nation and state. There is also, I would add, a difference between both of those and the word ‘country’. Examining the definitions above it does not take an engineer to recognize what is most commonly meant by each of those words. Allow me now to narrow each down and if, after careful consideration, it is felt I have done a poor job, then please submit a more appropriate correction for consideration;

State; a body politic
Nation; a people
Country; a land

Looking hard at the definitions for country, five of the six directly speak to what we have at issue here, and of those five, no less than 80% of them deal with geography, or dirt, if you prefer. Want to love a land, or a people? I’m sure any nationalist would too, lol, but in any event, I'm forced to conclude that, indeed, a few things "even suggested allows for that interpretation", and even in Dictionary.com there a few things suggesting it.

*I’m feeling particularly patriotic/nationalistic tonight and want to sing*

This dirt is your dirt, this dirt is my dirt ~
This dirt was made for you and me…

I don’t care much for sacred cows, and ‘sing’ in their general direction (my sacred cat was another matter, but unfortunately he too had to be 'put down').

[russ_watters]

Here you have stated patriotism has a specific definition, but you fail to illuminate the reader what it might be.

Next, honestrosewater naturally asks you to define patriotism, but you ignore the request, then define nationalism instead, lol; Please check that again. honestrosewater asked Adam to define patriotism and he did. I pointed out that the quotes he posted bear no resemblance to the definition he posted. I then I posted the definition of Nationalism and highlighted the difference because that is the obvious direction of such discussions. Here you speak of a subtle, but critical difference between nationalism and an as yet undefined patiotism. Again, the definition was already posted in post #6.
At this point in the conversation it would have required an ability to mind read to know what that difference might be (or did you just assume reasonable people must agree with you?). Huh? I highlighted the difference. If people wanted to say if they agree/disagree, that's fine. Afterwards, another member offers a definition and you announce ‘that’s it in a nutshell’. Ok...? You also state that a dictionary is not an unreasonable place to find a definition. The trouble, of course, is that the dictionary is totally silent when it comes to any mention of ideals, which means, in a nut shell, the specific definition is not what you claim it is! [quote] Well, you posted the definitions of "country" and "nation." Are you saying you see nothing in either of those definitions that would imply ideals? In any case you have already said you agree that patriotism is based on ideals. [quote]Going further, the only way patriotism, as seen in the dictionary, can actually be made to fit your belief is by giving it an arbitrary definition, which is precisely what I said you were doing a post or two ago! Huh? I'm following the dictionary definition. Part of the problem here may be the fact that the US is different from other countries in some ways. In a monarchy, for example, the king, quite literally is the country. Oaths of allegience are to the King (that doesn't leave a lot of room for principles, does it?). In the US (and in most democracies), the Constitution is king. And what is the Constitution if not a collection of priciples (ideals) arranged into a functioning government document. I have stated the only problem I have in someone doing just such a thing is only when they begin to proclaim their definition is right and anyone not in agreement must be wrong. This is precisely what I see you doing, and I wonder whether you are so enamored of your own view that you cannot consider any another. Most people think they are right in their opinions otherwise they wouldn't have those opinions. You like to argue tautologies, don't you?

That does not mean I won't defend my opinion if asked, nor does it mean I won't consider anyone else's opinion. Why would quibbling over ‘exact definition’ be a difficulty if patriotism has a ‘specific definition ???
Lately, it has gone from having a specific (exact?) definition to being “a difficult word to define…” Well, at least we’re making progress, right? [quote] The part in parenthases (that you conveniently ignored) is important. Ever hear the famous quote from a judge about porn? Something like 'I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.' The dictionary definition is pretty simple. Applying it to the real world is not always so simple. Patriotism works much the same way. [qoute]if patriotism were in the first place to have meant what you think it does, then why isn’t it worded in dictionaries to reflect same? It is. Its just more concise. If patriotism is so very different from nationalism, as you have claimed, then why do I find in those links you provided, the following; Well gee, if you cut out the differences, then they look pretty similar! Yet annother tautology. Tiring. This is nonsense which I suspect can only make sense when argued from within an existing belief, and therefore circular. You're saying patriotism is not an ideal? Are you saying the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not based on ideals?Considering Vonnegut’s age (born in 1922, served in WWII), he would not have had access to Dictionary.com definitions. It would, therefore, be prudent to examine some definitions which existed during his youth, since the meanings of words do in fact change over the course of time, even while many people do not. Considering his age and his politics, it is unsurprising that Vonnegut misses the distinction: nationalism was the driving force behind global politics in the first half of the century and the distinction certainly got blurred. The change from that is why there hasn't been a 3rd world war.

That definition of "country" also reflects a nationalistic view - and again, considering when it was written, its unsurprising. Particularly, definition 3. "Fatherland" is a word the Nazis used to describe Germany. I have never once heard an American use that term to describe the chunk of land the US sits on or pledge allegience to the chunk of land. That part, specifically, does not apply to the US.

Today's definition contains a key difference in 1a: "A nation or state." Simple and to the point. But then, what is a nation or state...

In your 1945 definition of nation, it also sounds vaguely nationalistic. Definition 1 is close, but without the "blood" part (since the US is multicultural/ethnic). Definition 2, however, is straight to the point. That is were the Constitution and its ideals fit in. As I believe Njorl pointed out, there is a difference between a nation and state. There is also, I would add, a difference between both of those and the word ‘country’. Examining the definitions above it does not take an engineer to recognize what is most commonly meant by each of those words. Like a lot of words, they mean different things in different context. Where applicable to patriotism, they are virtually identical. Allow me now to narrow each down and if, after careful consideration, it is felt I have done a poor job, then please submit a more appropriate correction for consideration;

State; a body politic
Nation; a people
Country; a land So where do the ideals of the Constituion and Declaration fit in there? IMO, you've pared down the definitions in such a way as to specifically exclude what makes the US the US and patriotism patriotism.

In any case, as I've pointed out before, you yourself agreed that patriotism is about ideals.

Maybe the next step is to ask a few political scientists what they think about the definitions of patriotism and nationalism (too bad I don't still have the papers I wrote on the subject...).

[russ_watters]

A little more on this (I'll set aside for now the fact you are contradicting an earlier statement you made...) Examining the definitions above it does not take an engineer to recognize what is most commonly meant by each of those words. Allow me now to narrow each down and if, after careful consideration, it is felt I have done a poor job, then please submit a more appropriate correction for consideration;

State; a body politic
Nation; a people
Country; a land Patriotism: love of country
Country: a nation
Nation: the government
Government: the Constitution
Constitution: the collection of ideals on which the US was founded

Therefore
Patriotism: love of the collection of ideals on which the US was founded.

If you prefer though:
Patriotism: love of country
country: a genre of music

Therefore,
patriotism: love of country music

I doubt you'll get a political science prof to buy that one though...

[russ_watters]

I think THIS (http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20011002) may be of interest. I was actually looking for a political scientists' viewpoint, but I think the writer of a dictionary may have a relevant insight: But when people take patriotism to a fanatic extreme, this is usually called nationalism. (The terms jingoism and chauvinism are near synonyms.) Nationalism is more centered in thought than in feeling; it's actually a political and social philosophy. The Columbia Encyclopedia defines it as "a collective state of mind or consciousness in which people believe their primary duty and loyalty is to the nation-state. Often nationalism implies national superiority and glorifies various national virtues. Thus love of nation may be overemphasized; concern with national self-interest to the exclusion of the rights of other nations may lead to international conflict." So, because nationalism is the belief that national interests and security are more important than international considerations, it often goes hand in hand with a militaristic foreign policy. It also tends to encourage cultural conformity and intolerance. [emphasis added] So essentially, nationalism, according to this dictionary (personified) is patriotism perverted to extremism.

Also, the bolded part was a key in my poly-sci class: nationalism is exclusionary, patriotism is not.

One implication of nationalism, mentioned but not explored, is the security part. Security means (mostly) borders and boundaries. That's where nationalism gets its ties to the land a country is sitting on.

And there are some quotes there from famous people who do share this view of patriotism.

If you're specifically looking for the word "ideals," you can find it HERE (http://www.dreamsmith.org/rants/patriotism.shtml) (disclaimer: I have no idea who this person is, but I mostly share his opinion). When these people fought for their country, they were not fighting for a flag, and they weren't fighting for a government, either. There was no United States at the time -- America was just an ideal, and it was that ideal that they fought for, fought to try to bring about, to bring that ideal into reality. That's what patriots do, then and now -- try to bring that ideal into reality. This guy is specifically talking about the original American patriots and while he is right that there was no country (government) to fight for at the time, now that there is a country (government) to fight for, fighting for that government as the embodiment of those ideals is still patriotism. That's also why when government fails in its responsibility to uphold those ideals, fighting against the government is still patriotism.

[BoulderHead]

Please check that again. honestrosewater asked Adam to define patriotism and he did.
I cannot believe how poor my comprehension skills are becoming of late! Sorry about that, I’d like to blame medications rather than mind, but suspect the latter, lol.

Well, you posted the definitions of "country" and "nation." Are you saying you see nothing in either of those definitions that would imply ideals?
I’m saying I see more than a path leading only to ideals, something you have denied exists. You speak of a specific definition which must lead only to ideals. The truth is closer to the definition being general, not specific, and from this general definition you rework to arrive at ideals. This is exactly what you are doing below when you make the following path;

Patriotism: love of country
Country: a nation
Nation: the government
Government: the Constitution
Constitution: the collection of ideals on which the US was founded

And I want to point out a few considerations;
First; I think Nation equates more to a people than to a government, but ok.
Second; The entire path outlined above is not, and never will amount to, a demonstration that patriotism must only be defined in accordance with your beliefs for at least the following reasons;

1) The entire path outlined demonstrates a specific definition arrived at by selective interpretation from broader general definitions.
2) Each successive ‘jump’ is not necessitated by anything beyond a desire to arrive at what one wishes to arrive at.
3) Just as nothing demands one jump must lead to the next, neither is there a braking mechanism implied to stop the process at ideals.

In short, there were/are other meanings that could have been ascribed to any of those words and the chain could have been stopped at any point along the way such to have arrived at a different conclusion. That is just a plain and simple fact, nothing less and nothing more. Definitions are no doubt being redefined with every generation and even within any given there is disagreement. All of these are reasons why your claim that patriotism can only be properly defined as you would have it, is as absurd as it is patently false.

In any case you have already said you agree that patriotism is based on ideals.
This is neither what I said, or meant to say, and in any event cannot be used as a defense for your view. What I said was;
“I tie patriotism to ideals. Unlike you, I do not boldly proclaim to hold the ‘true’ definition, but merely state to hold my own definition (knowing it isn't to be found in any dictionary )”
Clearly, I’m talking about my own personal definition here, not claiming such definition is some unalterable fact demanded by definition as you insist on continuing to do.

Huh? I'm following the dictionary definition.
The one that says nationalism and patriotism are synonymous?

Part of the problem here may be the fact that the US is different from other countries in some ways. In a monarchy, for example, the king, quite literally is the country. Oaths of allegience are to the King (that doesn't leave a lot of room for principles, does it?). In the US (and in most democracies), the Constitution is king. And what is the Constitution if not a collection of priciples (ideals) arranged into a functioning government document.
I would not define country to literally be any person, so no meaningful agreement can I find with such a statement. Even so, if the King is the country then ‘love of country’, would simply mean love of King, and no doubt a good number of patriots would love him, lol. All that is really seen above is a predisposition to assume ideals into patriotism.

Now, I will agree it is entirely possible to derive your interpretation of what patriotism means, but this cannot ever diminish the fact, for example, that ‘country’ equates to geography. There is simply no way you will ever get around this by showing your ‘technique’ to derive a specific meaning, so at some point you really should concede that it is in fact possible to understand patriotism in the cynical manner of Mr. Vonnegut.

That does not mean I won't defend my opinion if asked, nor does it mean I won't consider anyone else's opinion.
I’m not asking you to defend your opinion. When you are finally able to concede that opinion is all your view amounts to then I’ll consider the discourse successfully concluded.


The dictionary definition is pretty simple.
Yes, which is why I must ask; what part of synonymous don’t you understand? :smile:

It is. Its just more concise.
Exactly! Concise as in; Expressing much in a few words. In fact this is quite true, although you prefer to ignore much of what can be expressed in effort to bolster an assumed conclusion.

Well gee, if you cut out the differences, then they look pretty similar! Yet annother tautology. Tiring.
This is cute, but I’m not the one who offered a source for those definitions, you were, LOL! Instead of attempting to write it off as ‘yet another tautology’ on my part, try considering it for what it actually is; an indicator of how ridiculously thin your position truly is. Also; if you think it tiring I’d like to discuss a very exciting new idea you’ve given me; take any two words, cut out the differences, and bingo, they look pretty similar (by god, we have a tautology, haha).

You're saying patriotism is not an ideal?
*when will this finally be understood?*
I’m saying you cannot prove it must only be an ideal, and therefore using that argument to prove Vonnegut is wrong can only fail (which is a separate matter from demonstrating that definitions can in fact equate to Vonnegut’s understanding, btw).

Are you saying the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not based on ideals?
It doesn’t matter if is was or wasn’t *yawn*.


So where do the ideals of the Constituion and Declaration fit in there? Are you now asking for my help in fitting presupposed ideals into your tautology again?

IMO, you've pared down the definitions in such a way as to specifically exclude what makes the US the US and patriotism patriotism.
First; I’m working from the definitions, and I asked it be shown where in those definitions I went wrong, you haven’t shown me. Instead, you bemoan a sacred cow.
Second; There is plenty of room there for being in love with real-estate, so what are you complaining about? lol
Third; [edited out my misunderstanding]
Forth; In an effort to accomodate the US and Patriotism, here’s another dandy from Vonnegut;

(From Mother Night)
"Drawn crudely in the dust of three window-panes were a swastika, a hammer and sickle, and the Stars and Stripes. I had drawn the three symbols weeks before, at the conclusion of an argument about patriotism with Kraft. I had given a hearty cheer for each symbol, demonstrating to Kraft the meaning of patriotism to, respectively, a Nazi, a Communist, and an American. 'Hooray, hooray, hooray,' I'd said."


Maybe the next step is to ask a few political scientists what they think about the definitions of patriotism and nationalism.
What if they too suggest going to the dictionary? lol

A little more on this (I'll set aside for now the fact you are contradicting an earlier statement you made...)
Don’t set anything aside please, I clearly make mistakes (I’m actually human and fallible) and want to know all my short fallings

[russ_watters]

I’m not asking you to defend your opinion. When you are finally able to concede that opinion is all your view amounts to then I’ll consider the discourse successfully concluded. Sure, I'll concede to that if you concede that my opinion is the prevailing one among political scientists and therefore the correct interpretation.

One thing I will concede now - though I consider the path to the definition straightforward, that may come from the fact I have studied this in great detail. To someone who has never studied this, I can see why it wouldn't be so clear. But not knowing does not give one license to make up their own definitions to suit their own personal politics.

Pretty much everything else has already been covered - including that BS about synonyms. (again) Its in bold on the first page of the thread. What if they too suggest going to the dictionary? lol Check the link I posted for a dictionary writer's explanation of the definition.Also; if you think it tiring I’d like to discuss a very exciting new idea you’ve given me; take any two words, cut out the differences, and bingo, they look pretty similar (by god, we have a tautology, haha). I was actually thinking of doing just that to demonstrate how rediculous your editing technique was. But I let it go.First; I think Nation equates more to a people than to a government, but ok. :confused: :confused: Do we need to define "democracy" now too?Don’t set anything aside please, I clearly make mistakes (I’m actually human and fallible) and want to know all my short fallings The fact that you tend to acknowledge them does give me respect for you. Not many people will even acknowledge a simple misread.

[BoulderHead]

Sure, I'll concede to that if you concede that my opinion is the prevailing one among political scientists and therefore the correct interpretation.
It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
- Giordano Bruno

The truth, in this case, is the definition of patriotism is an open ended quagmire that quite easily fits hand in glove with nationalism.

Here is how I’m inclined to see the matter at present; to the extend patriotism is defined in terms of ideals it is idealistic, and to the extent such is applied to a nation-state it is nationalistic, fostering that same old tradition of us verses them mentality (People seem forever intent on being part of something bigger than themselves, something I consider pathetic). I do believe eventually dictionaries are going to be seen reflecting ideals into their definitions for patriotism, but that day seems yet to arrive, so I cannot agree to your interpretation being correct, only prevalent.

One thing I will concede now - though I consider the path to the definition straightforward, that may come from the fact I have studied this in great detail. To someone who has never studied this, I can see why it wouldn't be so clear. But not knowing does not give one license to make up their own definitions to suit their own personal politics.
This is not so much of a concession as a pronouncement of ignorance upon those not holding your view. Not only is this a pronouncement of ignorance, but demonstrates an unwillingness to concede another view, too. I simply will not allow this to stand for the fact you been challenged to demonstrate your view is the only possible interpretation and you have completely failed to do so. If your dictionary source had put forth the definition I will show below, I would immediately have conceded the point (actually, I never would have contested it). You are still claiming to know when in fact your own source was ambiguous at best. I think what makes the most sense is there is an ongoing process using ‘license’ to redefine patriotism away from nationalism and toward ideals. There is nothing straightforward about a definition open for defining ‘country’ as government, people, territory, etc. How about taking this revision for a test drive;

Patriotism: love of the collection of ideals on which was founded.

Now that’s what I would consider as being straightforward, and if that’s what had been meant then that’s what belongs in the dictionary!

Pretty much everything else has already been covered - including that BS about synonyms. (again) Its in bold on the first page of the thread.
Then take the matter up with dictionary.com because;
1) It was quite clearly in your source.
2) To simply ignore it is to again engage in a process of selective ‘cherry picking’.

If you were referring to; “the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation." Then I would simply point out there is nothing inherent here to preclude a patriot from feeling this way (for the obvious reason they are in love with the ideals behind the founding of their country). Ever hear anyone state; we’re better than they are? (I certainly have, right over there in the political forum as a matter of fact).


[i]BoulderHead;
First; I think Nation equates more to a people than to a government, but ok.

russ_watters
Do we need to define "democracy" now too?
No need; just check and you will see the definitions for Nation, State, and Country, at one point each refer to the other, but the bulk of the definitions for Nation seem to imply a body of people (otherwise you should have corrected my renderings from the 1945 definitions earlier). Because of this it is possible to ‘snag’ whatever one wants to support a position, and this is exactly why there is nothing straightforward about the definition of patriotism.

[BoulderHead]

That definition of "country" also reflects a nationalistic view - and again, considering when it was written, its unsurprising. Particularly, definition 3. "Fatherland" is a word the Nazis used to describe Germany..
On the topic of Fatherland as it relates to Patriot, with text boldened by yours truly;

patriot - 1596, "compatriot," from M.Fr. patriote (15c.), from L.L. patriota "fellow-countryman" (6c.), from Gk. patriotes "fellow countryman," from patrios "of one's fathers," patris "fatherland," from pater (gen. patros) "father," with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition. Meaning "loyal and disinterested supporter of one's country" is attested from 1605, but became an ironic term of ridicule or abuse from mid-18c. in England, so that Johnson, who at first defined it as "one whose ruling passion is the love of his country," in his fourth edition added, "It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government."

"The name of patriot had become [c.1744] a by-word of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said that ... the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was that he had never been and never would be a patriot." [Macaulay, "Horace Walpole," 1833]

Somewhat revived in ref. to resistance movements in overrun countries in WWII, it has usually had a positive sense in Amer.Eng., where the phony and rascally variety has been consigned to the word patrioteer (1928). Oriana Fallaci ["The Rage and the Pride," 2002] marvels that Americans, so fond of patriotic, (1757) patriot, and patriotism (1726), lack the root noun and are content to express the idea of patria by cumbersome compounds such as homeland. (Joyce, Shaw, and H.G. Wells all used patria as an Eng. word early 20c., but it failed to stick.)
Taken from; http://www.etymonline.com/p3etym.htm


Here is what a United States Congressman has said;

Patriotism is a love of and loyalty to one's country. A patriot is someone who loves, supports, and is prepared to serve their country. The word patriotism comes from a Greek word meaning fatherland. For most of history, love of fatherland or homeland was an attachment to the physical features of the land. But that notion changed in the eighteenth century, when the ideals of democracy, socialism, and communism strongly emerged into political thought. Patriotism was still a love of one's country that included connections to the land and people, but then also included its customs and traditions, pride in its history, and devotion to its welfare.
Taken from; http://rodriguez.house.gov/news/record.asp?id=903

Can't you just smell the soil?

I have never once heard an American use that term to describe the chunk of land the US sits on or pledge allegience to the chunk of land. That part, specifically, does not apply to the US
Scope of topic not limited to US.

[russ_watters]

It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
- Giordano Bruno Great quote, but it has nothing to do with what a definition is. A definition is an arbitrary human construct, and as such, is arrived at by general agreement of the majority. Your (interesting) info on the entemology shows that.

In science, you must agree on the exact definition of a term, otherwise, it doesn't work. For some reason, people like to think that in political science, that principle doesn't apply. Well, it does.

If you walk into a physics class and tell your prof you are going to define mass as "q" and use it in all of your equations (e=qc2), he'll laugh first because he thinks you are kidding - but if you actually do it, he'll fail you.

Similarly, if you tell your poly sci prof that you choose to define patriotism as an exact synonym of nationalism, she'll laugh first, then fail you if you do it (especially if an essay question specifically asks what the difference is).

[BoulderHead]

Great quote, but it has nothing to do with what a definition is. A definition is an arbitrary human construct, and as such, is arrived at by general agreement of the majority. Your (interesting) info on the entemology shows that.

In science, you must agree on the exact definition of a term, otherwise, it doesn't work. For some reason, people like to think that in political science, that principle doesn't apply. Well, it does.

If you walk into a physics class and tell your prof you are going to define mass as "q" and use it in all of your equations (e=qc2), he'll laugh first because he thinks you are kidding - but if you actually do it, he'll fail you.

Similarly, if you tell your poly sci prof that you choose to define patriotism as an exact synonym of nationalism, she'll laugh first, then fail you if you do it (especially if an essay question specifically asks what the difference is).
Give it up, Russ. Not one iota of this supports your defense. As can now easily be seen by anyone reading these posts, your interpretation is a relatively modern invention in the history of the word patriotism and even at that it is restricted to a narrow context (the same one you seem limited to judging such things with). I have challenged you to demonstrate why there is nothing in the definition to suggest Vonnegut’s understanding and you absolutely cannot do it because the history of the word itself demonstrates there is. You have attempted at least in part to support your position by insisting patriotism can only be interpreted one way (your way), but again, you cannot do it without denying history (past and present). It appears you want to posit academia supports only your view, but you have not shown this to be factual. In the first place, it seems doubtful you would ever have had actual dealings beyond one or two such people (and therefore do not speak from a position of authority), secondly, your statement can only lead one to believe you are much too timid to attempt questioning authority (and therefore merely do what you think is expected of you, rather than actually explore the issue).
Your erroneous analogy to tautologies such as 2 + 2 = 4 misses the mark; not all things are static and unchanging, some things are even vague. Vonnegut’s view is supported both by history and linguistics, while your view of only one possible way to define patriotism equating to ideals is nothing short of ludicrous. If you wanted to argue a relativist position where context was to be considered then you missed your opportunity. Language is used in conjunction with other members of society, true, but the totality of meaning for a word such as patriotism is not limited by some narrow group, believed to exist, that one personally identifies with to the exclusion of all else, so if you want to argue context (I’m from the US and this is how we do it here, so everyone else must be wrong, etc.) you will undermine your bold claims your own self.

Any researching at all will quickly demonstrate the falsity of your position; why, even the words of the National Museum of Patriotism demonstrate a general lack of consensus;
Welcome to the National Museum of Patriotism. Obviously the word “patriotism” means different things to different people.
Taken from; http://www.museumofpatriotism.org/index.html

Perhaps after straightening out the good folks at dictionary.com you might like to call the museum and explain the 'facts' to them as well;

Phone Numbers:
(404) 875-0691
or
Toll Free Phone:
(877) 276-1692

Also from that site;
“Patriotism is love for one’s country, to support, serve, and defend, to be inspired by, to change for the better and to care deeply for its citizens.”
Our definition, The National Museum of Patriotism, Inc.
It sure would have been nice if they’d have mentioned something about ideals, but at least they do not proclaim to hold a universal truth. Anyway, since you want to claim a general agreement supports your assertions (don't forget which ones I've been attacking) then I must now challenge you to present the proof. I predict you will meet with failure.

[russ_watters]

Perhaps after straightening out the good folks at dictionary.com... Huh? Did you not read the link I posted to a dictionary writer's explanation of the definition? Heck, did you even read the link you posted? From the site you linked (their definition, btw, fits mine): We invite you to come inside and explore what patriotism meant to those Americans who came before us, as well as what it means to many of us today. We all share a belief in an idea called America. You are about to experience how that belief was - and is - expressed. While it says the definition can be hard to pin down, they do frame it in such a way as to guide you to their definition (which, btw, seems to exclude the idea that it is tied to land), don't they? Of course, they get a tad more specific here: It requires building on each visitor’s understanding of patriotism and helping that visitor recognize that true patriotism is based upon devotion to the American ideals of equality before the law, economic freedom, and civic virtue. Again, though this quote doesn't specifically exclude the idea that its tied to land, it would seem to not be important enough to say it is included. It is quite specific though, that it is tied to ideals. And quite frankly, it almost seems like the quote you posted is them saying it means different things to different people because people don't understand it.

Also, of course definitions evolve and I never said they haven't - you seemed to be arguing that they don't (or, perhaps, that the modern understanding is somehow 'wrong')!

Regarding acadamia's opinion: how many do you need me to post before you conclude that there is a consensus opinion? Or perhaps better yet, could you find for me a political scientist who argues that nationalism and patriotism are exact synonyms?

Boulderhead, your argument here appears to be that you can look at the different definitions of the constituent words and pick the mixture you like best. Is that what you are claiming?

[russ_watters]

Something I alluded to before but didn’t fully develop: Clearly, people who think patriotism is a good thing and people who think it’s a bad thing are using two different definitions. I’d like to know why? I can’t ask Vonnegut, but I can ask you: why is it that you choose to use this definition? When someone tells you “I am a patriot,” what do you assume that person means? Do you assume s/he is using your definition? Does it tell you anything that the definition you choose conflicts with the definition an avowed patriot probably uses?

Thinking about it more, perhaps like love itself, patriotism is something only a patriot understands?

[BoulderHead]

Museum of Patriotism;
It requires building on each visitor’s understanding of patriotism and helping that visitor recognize that true patriotism is based upon devotion to the American ideals of equality before the law, economic freedom, and civic virtue

russ_watters;
Again, though this quote doesn't specifically exclude the idea that its tied to land, it would seem to not be important enough to say it is included. It is quite specific though, that it is tied to ideals.
Yes, it does mention ideals, this it true (and methinks ‘good’ – would have been better in their official definition). Notice they first say “Obviously the word “patriotism” means different things to different people.” And when they do provide a definition they are properly cautious and say it is ”Our definition”. These are both indicators that other definitions can and do exist, whereas you have claimed only yours can rightfully be derived. Next, they invoke a rendition of the Scotsman Fallacy by stating;

“It requires building on each visitor’s understanding of patriotism and helping that visitor recognize that true patriotism is based upon devotion to the American ideals of equality before the law, economic freedom, and civic virtue.”

Now, it is of course beside the point to our haggling, but I’m going to go on record here to say I reject their opinion of what true patriotism is based on. They imply patriots of other times, of other countries, operating under other definitions, cannot be ‘true’ unless they are based on the ‘American ideals’ outlined above (note what I will quote from Jill Ker Conway concerning civic virtue, below). I think this is inflammatory and while I may not be an American by birth, I observe even within their own Americentrism they mention neither the US Constitution nor Bill of Rights. Why couldn’t a dictatorship offer up what they are suggesting?

But, back to the point; their efforts to pursued people to such a view, even noting they mention ideals directly by name, does not support your blanket statement that patriotism must necessarily be defined as implying them.

Also, of course definitions evolve and I never said they haven't - you seemed to be arguing that they don't (or, perhaps, that the modern understanding is somehow 'wrong')!
Careful now, I do not want to stray off point. There is a difference between stating that patriotism cannot possibly be interpreted in any way but your own, and trying to argue that within a certain context patriotism cannot possibly be interpreted in any way but your own. Your original claim was the former type, not the latter; as you put it neither in context or qualified it as an opinion.

Regarding acadamia's opinion: how many do you need me to post before you conclude that there is a consensus opinion? Or perhaps better yet, could you find for me a political scientist who argues that nationalism and patriotism are exact synonyms?
To your second question; I wish to stay on my complaints. It is true that I can see perfectly well the difference between the two need not be more than negligible, and I have already shown how such could be the case. You did not comment on it at the time, but to answer your question I believe it possible to find such, yes, but you seem so recalcitrant to concede my other points that I prefer to keep drilling you with them.
To your first question; haha, it would take more for than against, obviously. Of course you are the one making the claim and so unless you are willing to retract it I would like to see you support it, yes? Try to account for Non-Americans if you can, please. I know it is difficult for many nationalists to see beyond their own territory, but judging the world so one dimensionally can come across as bigoted. I hope you will trust me when I promise to let you know if I become convinced, and maybe I’ll try to counter you two or three for one, if I’m able, lol. Why, I’ll get started with some intellectuals right now;

American Values: Understanding Patriotism in Our Time
Taken from; http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_patriotism.html

DEREK BOK: Caroline, thank you. Well, patriotism is, in many ways, a mysterious word.
~ So this is very much a contested term. And we have a distinguished panel to discuss this illusive word and to debate what its contemporary significance is in the United States.
~ So we will move immediately, and I will simply try to throw a match into the tinder box and get the discussion going by, I think, starting in the obvious place by asking how we really ought to define patriotism since different people seem to take it so many different ways. Is it about love of country? Does it imply obligations? To whom are we loyal and why?
~ blah blah (actually some interesing blahs) ~

JILL KER CONWAY: As someone who has lived in three different countries and functioned as a citizen in all of them, I have a rather different perspective. I was born in Australia. And it's impossible for an Australian patriot to be accepting of public authority, because the tradition of the country was established by convicts. And the regime which controlled them was one they despised. So civic virtue in their minds became an absolutely iron will never to surrender to illegitimate authority. And for an Australian, patriotism has the aura of being somebody who will not accept the state and will not accept a conventional view of what love of country is. And anybody who goes and listens to a debate in the Australian Parliament will instantly become aware that these are fighting people who have no respect for their betters.

Bok: Before we leave these sorts of definitions, there is something I alluded to in my opening remarks that I'd like to put to Louis Menand. And that is, and maybe you'll just dispute my characterization. I think it's fair to say that patriotism tends to elicit quite different, more skeptical, even more hostile reactions among intellectuals than say among blue collar workers. And I guess that's where Samuel Johnson's quote about the last refuge of scoundrels is part of that tradition. And surely there are various critics who have pointed out that that tradition of skepticism persists in universities and other intellectual circles even today.

Would you agree that there is a certain skepticism about patriotism and its usage in the United States among intellectuals? And do you have an explanation as to why that might be if you see some truth in it?


MENAND: Yeah, I do. The explanation is it's our job.
~ Yes, academics are skeptical about concepts like patriotism, they're skeptical of all concepts, or they ought to be, because the academy is a place in which assumptions that the rest of us share in daily life as a matter of course can be questioned and can be examined. The mere act of questioning them should not be taken as un-patriotic.

DEREK BOK: Is it possible to disentangle that by suggesting that patriotism is a kind of loyalty to a set of ideals of America at its best rather than an unquestioning loyalty of a country or regime or something of that--

WILKINS: Well, you know, I really could have lived by Edmund Burke's motto that "the only thing that is required for evil to prevail is for good people to remain silent." And a terrific thing about this country is that nobody can silence you. And that as long as you can have a voice and struggle to make things better, you really have life. And in this country you have that. No matter how bad things get, there's always an opportunity that they will get better at the next turn if you keep on going with that faith.
And, yes, a country which engenders that kind of faith is a country in which you surely can be patriotic.
I’ll cut it there. That entire web page is worth reading, imo. Well, patriotism is said to be a mysterious word. Between Bok and Menand agrees there is talk of skepticism about patriotism and its usage in the United States among intellectuals and in the universities...
Interestingly, the question of patriotism being about loyalty to a set of ideals was not answered by Wilkins with a “yes, ideals are what patriotism is all about…”. Instead, he states more to the effect that patriotism can exist in such a climate. I would suspect this is because patriotism does not have to be spelled i-d-e-a-l-s.
Boulderhead, your argument here appears to be that you can look at the different definitions of the constituent words and pick the mixture you like best. Is that what you are claiming?
Indeed that you can, yes, but more germane is the fact such has occurred, even tying patriotism directly to the soil (as that Congressman I quote related, among other things). What do you think is wrong with these statements of yours that I have been attacking;
“Nowhere in any definition of Patriotism I posted does it say anything about loving a chunk of land”
And
“I reject his quote because it bears no resemblence whatsoever to the definition of patriotism. Even if you want to leave the definition open for interpretation, nothing even suggested allows for that interpretation.”
Nowhere in ANY definition?
Nothing even to suggest?
Does historical fact play any part in your reasoning?
You deny with these bold-*** statements not only any actuality but even the very possibility of what in fact is known to be otherwise. These statements cannot even be excused by proclaiming that different interpretations exist in this day and age and therefore you are right, because such wouldn’t make one whit of difference even if true. It takes only a single example to falsify those statements and I have shown more than enough to do same.

[BoulderHead]

Something I alluded to before but didn’t fully develop: Clearly, people who think patriotism is a good thing and people who think it’s a bad thing are using two different definitions.
Consider this; Clearly, people who think Christianity is a good thing and people who think it’s a bad thing are using two different definitions.

I’d like to know why?
It doesn’t matter how it is defined, people can and will think what they want, even about those ideals you cherish. That you have trouble with this suggests to me a depth of emotional attachment you have to this word, and little more. Yes, I define it with ideals, but it still has a disgusting nationalist element about it. I prefer to be cosmopolitan.


I can’t ask Vonnegut, but I can ask you: why is it that you choose to use this definition?
I don’t ‘use’ this definition, I merely challenge you to show why Vonnegut cannot hold a valid definition, and why it must be true the only possible way to logically derive an understanding must equate it to ideals when in fact this has historically not always been the case.

When someone tells you “I am a patriot,” what do you assume that person means?
You mean a total stranger? The statement would mean nothing conclusive except to suggest this individual has an emotional attachment to something they likely feel is greater than self and noble. As such, it is likely safe to assume they are emotional 'clubbers’.

Do you assume s/he is using your definition?
At no time would I assume that.

Does it tell you anything that the definition you choose conflicts with the definition an avowed patriot probably uses?
It tells me meanings abound.

Thinking about it more, perhaps like love itself, patriotism is something only a patriot understands?
In the sense that patriotism involves the love word, it is emotional and personal, yes.

[BoulderHead]

We see the problem in the controversy surrounding the word “patriotism.” It’s a bad word in academic circles nowadays. Patriotism implies “a false air of moral weight and glory,” writes University of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum. Rather than developing preferences for any particular nation-state, students should be taught that they are citizens of the world that “happen to be situated in the United States.”
Taken from; http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed040303a.cfm

Perhaps patriotism differs for each citizen, what he or she regards as the quintessential aspects of the country: one man's hero may be another woman's traitor. Or is patriotism the mean of the country's sensibility, our societal norms?

Patriotism seems to me akin to allegiance: one can plausibly profess allegiance to vague or specific principles; but why on earth would one pledge allegiance to a piece of colored cloth?

In the end, the word "patriotism" differentiates one people from another, selects one group as being more deserving of special treatment at the expense of others, and encourages indifference to the plight of others' condition for the benefit of our own. It is yet one more obstacle to our species' learning to include all its kind under the umbrella of human need, right and frailty, a term full of "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

*John N. Cooper, Ph.D. (UC Berkeley) has been Professor of Chemistry at Bucknell University, since 1967 (retired 6/30/03).
Taken from; http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_10790.shtml


Should we not begin to redefine patriotism? We need to expand it beyond that narrow nationalism which has caused so much death and suffering. If national boundaries should not be obstacles to trade - we call it globalization - should they also not be obstacles to compassion and generosity?
Tom Paine used the word "patriot" to describe the rebels resisting imperial rule. He also enlarged the idea of patriotism when he said: "My country is the world. My countrymen are mankind."
Howard Zinn is a professor emeritus at Boston University and author of "The People's History of the United States."
Taken from; http://www.veteransforpeace.org/A_kinder_patriotism_041303.htm

[russ_watters]

First off, the issue of the US vs other countries: Try to account for Non-Americans if you can, please. Patriotism is a word that can apply to other countries, but the word is an American English word, regardless of its entemology. Its meaning comes from the American usage. I can't speak to how an Australian might use the word - I can't even say for sure they use the word at all. I know it is difficult for many nationalists to see beyond their own territory, but judging the world so one dimensionally can come across as bigoted. Do you see the irony in that implication? Since I consider you to be misunderstanding the difference between the two words, implying that I'm a nationalist only strenghtens that view.

In any case, I only skimmed that page with the transcript discussing patriotism, but it seemed to fit my definition quite well. Could you just please quote for me the section of the discussion where they talk about patriotism being defined as 'love of a chunk of land?'
Nowhere in ANY definition?
Nothing even to suggest? You've been harping on this for a while now, and quite frankly, I've let it go because I simply didn't know how to respond. After thinking about it, I must concede to one thing: I have never before considered the possibility that an American would define "The United States of America" as 'a chunk of land in North America.' Yes, the dictionary definition of "country" does allow that possibility. Having now (apparently) seen two people who would define the USA in these terms, I stick by my initial assesment, with a minor modification: neither you, nor Vonnegut understands what makes the USA the USA and as a result (edit: actually, I'm not sure if thats really the cause or the effect), neither of you understand what patriotism is.Consider this; Clearly, people who think Christianity is a good thing and people who think it’s a bad thing are using two different definitions. :confused: :confused: What? "Christianity" has a quite simple, objective definition. Its a religion/group of religions that believe that Jesus was the son of God and the savior of mankind. Do you also consider "The People's Republic of China" to be an allowable usage of the word "republic?"

I guess in light of your views on patriotism, this shouldn't surprise me, but it is clear to me now that your biases are affecting the way you define and use words. Worse, it actually seems that you are saying that its right that people should choose definitions based on their personal biases instead of on some objective basis. I'm not sure if its coscious or not, but that's horrid misuse of language. A month ago, I probably would have assumed it was intellectual dishonesty (that's why the word "nefarious" kept coming up). Now I'm not sure. It may simply be a complete misunderstanding of the concept of "definition."

Again, science isn't somehow special in this regard: definitions are specific and not a matter of personal choice. In science as in life, the words you use are decided on by consensus and usage is restricted to the agreed-upon definition. Making up your own definitions means you are making up your own language: you're not speaking Enlish anymore, you're speaking "Boulderese." In "Boulderese," "patriotism" can mean whatever you want it to - in American English, it can't.

[BoulderHead]

Patriotism is a word that can apply to other countries, but the word is an American English word, regardless of its entemology. Its meaning comes from the American usage. I can't speak to how an Australian might use the word - I can't even say for sure they use the word at all.
An American monopoly?

Patriotism is a praiseworthy competition with one's ancestors.
- Tacitus (55 - 120) Roman historian

“…Canadians have historically been quiet patriots, says Jedwab. The very word "patriotism" seems more appropriate to describe the louder, more boisterous American variety of nationalism.”
Taken from; http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/rickmercer/molson.html

“Nietzsche wrote that words with a history cannot be defined. Their meanings are in their stories, their biographies. That is surely the case with "patriotism." Patriotism is as patriots have done. And in relatively recent times--say, since the American and French revolutions--those who have called themselves patriots or who have called others to the banner of patriotism have largely fallen into two camps.”
Taken from; http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=19910715&c=1&s=forum

Do you see the irony in that implication? Since I consider you to be misunderstanding the difference between the two words, implying that I'm a nationalist only strenghtens that view.
No irony, I understand full well that scratching the surface of patriotism generally reveals a narrow minded nationalism.

In any case, I only skimmed that page with the transcript discussing patriotism, but it seemed to fit my definition quite well. Could you just please quote for me the section of the discussion where they talk about patriotism being defined as 'love of a chunk of land?'
The point to the exercise was to demonstrate the difference of opinion which prevails. It is clear that different people ascribe different meanings to the definition of patriotism. You have quite wrongly argued your meaning is the definition when in fact it may very well not be. As to land being involved enough has been quoted previously to establish it, but here is more;

“The other company of patriots does not march to military time. It prefers the gentle strains of "America the Beautiful" to the strident cadences of "Hail to the Chief" and "The Stars and Stripes Forever." This patriotism is rooted in the love of one's own land and people, love too of the best ideals of one's own culture and tradition. This company of patriots finds no glory in puffing their country up by pulling others' down. This patriotism is profoundly municipal, even domestic. Its pleasures are quiet, its services steady and unpretentious.”
Taken from; http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=19910715&c=1&s=forum



Quote:
Nowhere in ANY definition?
Nothing even to suggest?
You've been harping on this for a while now, and quite frankly, I've let it go because I simply didn't know how to respond. After thinking about it, I must concede to one thing: I have never before considered the possibility that an American would define "The United States of America" as 'a chunk of land in North America.'
Which demonstrates two things; your view is rigidly Americentric, and you haven’t been exposed to what many actual Americans have had to say with regard to the subject matter. In other words, your opinionated views are supported predominately by mere opinion.


Yes, the dictionary definition of "country" does allow that possibility.
Thank you, I appreciate the concession.

Having now (apparently) seen two people who would define the USA in these terms, I stick by my initial assesment, with a minor modification: neither you, nor Vonnegut understands what makes the USA the USA and as a result (edit: actually, I'm not sure if thats really the cause or the effect), neither of you understand what patriotism is.
Well, of course I would expect you to have this opinion, but you really should remain politely silent on this point. You have already granted the dictionary definition allows the possibility and the fact Vonnegut is an American means his view should have as much determination on the point as your own. So all you’re actually arguing is that your opinion means more to you than another’s, which is not the same thing as saying anything substantial. Additionally, it is quite possible for either of us (V. or BH) to understand your meaning of what patriotism and still not accept it is essentially ‘good’.

Quote:
Consider this; Clearly, people who think Christianity is a good thing and people who think it’s a bad thing are using two different definitions.
What? "Christianity" has a quite simple, objective definition.
Patriotism also has a quite simple, objective definition. I was complaining about the application of moral terminology. In other words; anyone can look at your interpretation and call it either bad or good, so drawing such distinctions isn’t helpful.

I guess in light of your views on patriotism, this shouldn't surprise me, but it is clear to me now that your biases are affecting the way you define and use words.
I was simply showing what others had to say on the matter in an effort to demonstrate your bias in action.

Worse, it actually seems that you are saying that its right that people should choose definitions based on their personal biases instead of on some objective basis.
Then you miss my point; You are claiming objectivity where no such thing exists. Terms such as ‘Right’ can only be given within a certain context and you have turned to Academia to define the context. I, in turn, have quoted from such sources to demonstrate the meaning of the definition of patriotism is not as black and white as you have been saying. You seem to have drawn a general law from what basically constitutes a single, or at least severely restricted, particular instance.

I'm not sure if its coscious or not, but that's horrid misuse of language.The horrid misuse of language was put forth yourself in claiming the definition of ‘love of country’ could only be interpreted in a single way.

A month ago, I probably would have assumed it was intellectual dishonesty (that's why the word "nefarious" kept coming up). Now I'm not sure. It may simply be a complete misunderstanding of the concept of "definition."
Yes, and you are the one who has been suffering from this ‘illness’ by insisting patriotism can only mean what you believe it to mean. Additionally, the meaning may even be changing to reflect a negative view of patriotism. If such a view should be predominate (I’m beginning to suspect it may be) then your continued use of the meaning you prefer to ascribe, by your own reasoning, could then be labeled ‘nefarious’. How would you feel about that? Perhaps righteously indignant, refusing to let anyone else flesh out and dictate meaning to you?

Again, science isn't somehow special in this regard: definitions are specific and not a matter of personal choice.
If you really think definitions are specific then define ‘love’ and explain why everyone in the world must subscribe 100% to your understanding of same.

In science as in life, the words you use are decided on by consensus and usage is restricted to the agreed-upon definition.
True patriotism doesn't exclude an understanding of the patriotism of others.
- Queen Elizabeth II

With regard to the majority;

Questioning Patriotism
But since when has patriotism been defined as following along with the majoritarian view? Are people only patriotic when they agree with the majority? Are all minority views unpatriotic?
Taken from; http://www.skepticism.org/politics/terrorism/ter_ACTA.shtml

[BoulderHead]

Making up your own definitions means you are making up your own language: you're not speaking Enlish anymore, you're speaking "Boulderese." In "Boulderese," "patriotism" can mean whatever you want it to - in American English, it can't.
Would you prefer ‘Clowardease’;
Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven
Professor, Columbia University School of Social Work
Professor, Graduate Center, CUNY

We take patriotism to mean love of nation and the loyalty that follows. My country right or wrong. Even as an abstract idea, it is hard to see how thinking people justify blind loyalty. And considered historically, patriotism is plainly dangerous, helping to unleash military rampages in the name of nation and obliterating the essential democratic capacity to assess concrete and particular interests.
Or perhaps ‘Falkease’;
Richard Falk
Professor of international relations, Princeton University

~ What is more difficult is to give patriotism a positive content in America at this time.
If you wish to continue arguing the majority viewpoint should prevail then you will need to begin actually to provide some evidence there is one, and that it is the same in detail as your own. I have provided more than a single example strongly suggesting there is general disagreement. Here is more of same;

The ethics of patriotism
Different people have different opinions about whether patriotism is morally good. Often, these opinions vary according to what sort of patriotism is involved.
Taken from; http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/p/pa/patriotism.html

TODAY’S SCHOOLS
Since the rebellious 1960s, many traditional American virtues have been questioned by radical college students, some of whom even referred to their country as "Amerika." Other radicals blamed violence and poverty in the Third World on "American militarism, imperialism, and greed."
These "new barbarians," as former Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin, called them, spawned a generation of radical professors in our colleges. And on a broader canvas a kind of "political correctness" that scoffed at Middle American virtues has permeated our universities and the elite media. For many of these cynics, patriotism seems to be "the last refuge of a scoundrel," to quote Samuel Johnson.

Taken from; http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2140/pub_detail.asp
It's looking like academia is not on your side.