|Aug17-04, 07:56 PM||#86|
If patriotism is so very different from nationalism, as you have claimed, then why do I find in those links you provided, the following;
n : love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: nationalism]
n 1: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: patriotism]
\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.
*Oh, I hope this won't cause the patriots to take up arms, *
|Aug17-04, 08:28 PM||#87|
Some other parts of your last post should be addressed in a forthcoming ‘Point 3’
|Aug18-04, 11:12 PM||#88|
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;
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.
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.
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').
|Aug19-04, 12:17 PM||#89|
That does not mean I won't defend my opinion if asked, nor does it mean I won't consider anyone else's opinion. [quote] 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?
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.
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...).
|Aug19-04, 12:31 PM||#90|
A little more on this (I'll set aside for now the fact you are contradicting an earlier statement you made...)
Country: a nation
Nation: the government
Government: the Constitution
Constitution: the collection of ideals on which the US was founded
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
patriotism: love of country music
I doubt you'll get a political science prof to buy that one though...
|Aug19-04, 01:25 PM||#91|
I think THIS 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:
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 (disclaimer: I have no idea who this person is, but I mostly share his opinion).
|Aug20-04, 02:09 PM||#92|
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.
“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.
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.
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).
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."
|Aug20-04, 02:45 PM||#93|
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.
|Aug20-04, 07:53 PM||#94|
- 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.
Patriotism: love of the collection of ideals on which [insert country of choice] 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!
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).
|Aug20-04, 09:44 PM||#95|
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?
|Aug22-04, 03:25 PM||#96|
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).
|Aug22-04, 06:03 PM||#97|
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;
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;
Toll Free Phone:
Also from that site;
|Aug22-04, 07:44 PM||#98|
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?
|Aug22-04, 08:49 PM||#99|
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?
|Aug23-04, 12:43 AM||#100|
“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.
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
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.
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.
|Aug23-04, 01:20 AM||#101|
|Aug23-04, 10:37 AM||#102|
|Similar Threads for: Patriotism|
|What is Patriotism?||Current Events||23|
|On patriotism||General Discussion||33|