Why be patriotic? What is the point?

[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

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
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 beginning 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:

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 possesses 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 let's 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]

Point 1

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]

Point 2

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]



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.



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

 

[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]

Point 3

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; anybody 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!

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.

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?

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...