What Do You Owe Your Country? What Do You Give Back?

No. I'm in Georgia, where our motto is
"Thank God for Mississippi."
(They keep us from being the worst state in the Union.)

We keep fighting for #48 with Alabama...

Eatin' goober peas
Eatin' goober peas
In the Georgia infantry
Eatin' goober peas . . .

There was a fascinating piece on NPR about the new governor of Alabama, who is a fundamentalist christian, and a Republican, who states that it is his christian duty to raise taxes on the wealthy, so as to afford the best public services the state can afford for the poorer citizens. They interviewd him, and i was delighted. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth among the religious right.

Sofia, you said:

That's true of course. But that doesn't mean I need to identify nations as something real. They are not. As I said, I am grateful for the possibilities the predecessing communities and the different cultures this planet gave me. I have learnt something from every one of them. I'm currently living amongst mainly Moroccons and Turks, and from them too I have learnt something. That makes me a stronger individual, not a Kissingerian notion of a ghostly state I would, according to that ideology, belong to. To adhere to such a virtual nationalistic notion, is in my view a pittoresque and old fashion take on things, from a time when people weren't able to contemplate this small blue planet from one admirable satellite snapshot.

A big part of the modern global problem is precisely caused by an unwise revalorisation of that old conservative 'realism' the Bush cabal wants us to swallow, and the abandonment of that much more promising idea of 'interconnectedness' Bill Clinton left us with, built on the then utopic hopes of a certain President Kennedy ('We all breathe the same air...'). The fact that these two men are so hated by a large part of the Americans tells a lot about that individualistic and selfish psyche a considerable part of the United States population are sick with. No insult intended.

Setanta: I'm doing my best to be your friend. Take it up or continue this silly wordfight. Disagreement need not be like this.

I need you neither as a friend, nor an enemy. Your habit of projecting onto me those ideas and attitudes which you disparage does not tend to endear you to me. This is real life, despite the contention of many, and i have simply developed the habit of usually not responding to your posts when i see them here--just as i would avoid personal meetings with someone i find obnoxious. However, i don't intend to meekly accept being tarred with the broad brush you've been using here.

As your psychiatrist, I just want you to acknowledge that you have a very unpleasant debating style. Your thought system is based on agression, attack, and a general high-level conceitedness and disdain of those you spontaneously consider to be opponents -- not because they are, but merely because they differ from your point of view.

Do you hold real life discussions with the same loud mouthing arrogance ? I hope not. If yes, I can sympathize with the fact that those yappers are your best friends.

How very charming you are. Do you wonder that i describe you as obnoxious?

Re-read our dialogue and try to discover where it got obnoxious towards the other.

The essence of my investing energy into this, is to show that discussing does not equal fighting... that an exchange of ideas is not a conflict. In practice, that, when somebody is quoted, that person should not feel targeted or scorned. Quoting is just more practical to keep up the logic of the debate. Yet I observe that you take this as a kind of declaration of war, Setanta.

Let's simulate real life behavior here, instead of using a forum as an outlet for frustration and anger. The internet should be a reflection of real life civility, not a kind of safe haven for that which would be unacceptable in the flesh.

wolf--

I don't think an appreciation or feeling of a certain indebtedness towards one's country has to do with the type of nationalism you describe. This question was open to all citizens of any country.

It just has to do with the benefits (or lack of) each of us recieve from our country, and our related feelings. If you say nations don't exist, you must not pay taxes, or submit to your nation's laws... There is nothing wrong with a global interconnectedness. Don't you think it is possible to appreciate your country, admit its' existence AND prefer interconnectedness? Bringing Bush and personalities into the mix leads us down a politically partisan road that detracts from the topic, IMO. It seems to me you have a political point to make, rather than interest in speaking to the issue posed here.

One can love the world at large, appreciate the varying people and cultures, and still acknowledge the benefits or lack thereof of the nation they live in.

I do think it's related to nationalism. Very closely related to nationalism. Citizens from other countries have nationalism too ya know.

Yes, I agree, there can be a balance between love for your natal land and a universal identity. If you recognize the one in the other, and don't judge those who come from different cultural backgrounds than yours (which is not always easy, I admit, because it's not guaranteed that they will pay you the same courtesy).

But the ontological problem I'm facing is that nationality is a temporary, evaporating thing, while universality is eternal. It gets you further I would think.

But, that seems so broad brushedly unfair--like anyone who appreciates their country or feels any indebtedness to same is a militaristic, selfish Other Country Hater. Thats just not true.

I would point to dlowan's post. I don't think anyone would ascribe nationalism to her, yet she feels compelled to give back to her country and community. These were the types of responses I was interested in. Not some wrangling about Who's Country is Better, or more political discussion, but how people feel about the give and take between themselves and their country/community.

I liked Frank's response, as well. I'm a anti-litter activist, as well. I enjoy seeing what others are doing to make a difference in their corner of the world.

Nationalism doesn't have to mean militaristic, nor "selfish other country hater". But those traits do draw on nationalism.

dlowan is nationalist. Very much so by my estimation, also very patriotic and very much an "other country hater". You did not ask if people give back to their community. You asked is people "owe" their country.

There is a huge difference because they can easily not be the same thing.

Wolf, my original reply was on topic, and contained no personal criticism of you, and was not aggressive at all in its content. It read, in the part in which i responded to your post:



Your behavior here is exactly what it was in the thread in which the subject of UFO's came up. Whenever someone challenges what you've written, which is the essence of debate, you become hysterically offensive, and quickly degenerate into slinging personal remarks at the person who has had the temerity to question what you believe. It is for this reason, and since the exchanges in that thread, that i have considered you obnoxious and avoided you. You addressed me as "my friend." Given the sarcastic tone in which you delivered it, and your past history of personal attacks when disagreed with, i made it a point to observe that you are not my friend, and that i usually avoid threads in which i see you post.

I'm enjoying this thread, despite your hostility. I'm enjoying the responses that others make. I'm not going to be driven from this thread because of the nasty, aggressive posture you assume instantly when someone challenges your beliefs or questions what you've posted. All of the negative traits which you have ascribed to me are projections on me of the very tactics you employ. Debate is about disagreeing, and accepting that disagreement occurs, and hoping that in certain exchanges, common ground can be found. It is not an exercise in a convoluted courtesy that requires the participants never to gainsay what others have said. The sooner you absorb that lesson, and make it comprehensible to yourself, the sooner you will be able to engage in civilized debate, to your benefit and that of your interlocutors. As it stands right now, you just go into a thread and make a categoric, absolute statement, and then lay about yourself with a written cudgel, in a clumsy manner, as soon as there is any wiff of disagreement. I'll not waste any more time on you.

Sofia, well, there you have it. I educate people around me on the litter issue all the time. (You should see the amount of waste Turkish immigrants throw on the sidewalk.)

But I don't see this as 'serving my country' or something. :-)

I've served 18 month plus a couple more over the following 15 years as conscript in the Navy.

My country owes me a lot.

I've worked voluntarily for state, county and local communities.
They owe me a lot, too.

So it seems you, Sofia, Frank Apisa and I, Wolf, are doing the same thing by helping our community to be more livable, despite our different nationalities. Nationalities, again, which I believe to be virtual constructs.

Setanta, our discussion went along just fine, and I found your rebuttal to be genuinely interesting. The obnoxiousness started when you wrote



I think no one would be happy to hear that from a partner in debate.

I think that "owing" is a pertinent term. None of us here are members of a primitive culture which has moved within a generation into the modern, electronic culture. We have all been born into societies which were organized, ostensibly for the "general welfare," before we were born. Social organization is a community effort, and civil behavior is an individual effort--without either of which, a functioning social organization would not be possible. I acknowledge that we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, but one does not discard the workable simply because there is, in theory, a more efficient method to be obtained. One works within the structure to improve it.

To the extent that so many advantages in economic opportunities, transportation, public health, safety regulation and agencies, educational opportunities--in so many "social services," existed at the time of our birth, of which we are able to take advantage, we at least owe our own participation to maintain the structure.

Once can rail against injustice, venality, corruption and malfesance without calling for the complete destruction of the organization. Social organization provides us so much that we take for granted--i think that it is a good thing to step back from time to time and review how fortunate we are, and i therefore believe that we do indeed "owe" something to the society which nutures us, and in adulthood affords us security, and affluence when we are equipped to take advantage of opportunity.

But, you ARE serving Turkey! And the world! But, I see where you stand on 'owing your country.'

Craven--
I did ask what people give back.

Walter--
I am in awe of your contributions!

Setanta--
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of the topic. I agree with you.