Patriotism: Trash or Treasure?

It ain't only hocket that translates that way.

That guy that tried to catch that fly ball at Wrigley Field alread has death threats.

white house=masses poised to do something stupid (democrats & republicans)

Can you believe that??
The family is going to have to move! How horrible is that?
He wasn't the only guy reaching for it.

Dyslexia offered the above as an opinion but without regard for the feelings of anyone reading it who might take offense at such as this:

Because patriotism is ALWAYS the desire to contain others outside it's purvue it is ALWAYS EVIL in it's intent. This is a damn insult and anyone here who doesn't take offense would willingly let anyone put chains on them.

That inclues you specifically BBB

Brave of you, Deb.

It's not uncommon to find quite isolated hunter/gather societies still in existence today who refer to themselves as 'people' and to everyone else as 'not people'.

Familial identity (mom and me) is surely the first cognitive echelon, followed by troop and territory.

With the human ability to abstract, all sorts of identifications become possible...biker gangs, sexual fetish organizations (I belong to eight of them), the ACLU, acid heads, nations, faith groups, etc.

A fundamental element in group existence is agreement (clearly, where there is no agreement, there is no 'group'). Groups do various things to inculcate, then encourage/enforce, shared ideas and values. This is the interesting corner, to my mind, because of its significance in the arena of politics and to questions of liberty.

Clearly, some folks desire a much greater level of uniformity in group life than do other folks. The 'totalitarian' personality (for lack of a better phrase) is uncomfortable with high levels of randomness in their compatriots' behavior, whereas the 'liberal' personality seems to have rather more resilience in this. It seems a very important question as to how this variation comes about.

Er...(looking around anxiously)...what did I do that was "brave"?

LOL

Well, perhaps it is just my perspective, having addressed this particular question but an hour or two earlier, but in the specificity of American nationalism on a political thread, and arguing that too many Americans get a big boner for the flag.

Dyslexia:
Right on. You ain't wrong.

Blatham wrote:

"whereas the 'liberal' personality seems to have rather more resilience in this".

In response I offer this opinion----The "liberal" personality has considerable flexibility to pontificate and philosophy about "randomness of the their compatriots behavior" and the responsibilies of society for the group protection UNTIL Atilla the HUN is at the gate and then they seem to want other people's children to do the"messy work" and they will back them up-----way back. How much resilience will you have when they put you in chains?

Blatham wrote:

"but in the specificity of American nationalism on a political thread, and arguing that too many Americans get a big boner for the flag".

Since you obviously have no patriotism, nationalistic feeling for country nor love of your flag then you won't mind if I innumerate a few criticisms of your country----now you won't mind will you? Before I start just tell me for sure that you have no feeling for your country.

well, howdy Perc

Sorry, but I happen to think such a formulation describes something real in the world.

As evidence for the thesis, we can move away from the presently ticklish issue of war, and look at some other aspects.

For example, we could look at notions of sexual propriety, or at notions regarding clothing and grooming, or any number of other aspects of living. Certain people in any community clearly tend towards a propensity to insist that traditional modes and standards be continued, and they don't like the idea of change. A lady wears a red dress to her wedding, and other ladies gasp. Someone writes a poem but in free verse, and critics yell "Garbage!".

Now, if something like this is going on, it will be reflected in the political sphere.

perc

Truly, you can say anything about my country you wish. What you might say will be either true or false.

You could, for example, claim that Canada has institutionalized racism, evident in prison sentences and prison populations. You'd be saying something true. You could say that Canadian corporations are as guilty of immoral behaviors as are American or French corporations, and you'd be right again.

I feel no allegiance to my country's flag though I think there are a great number of very good things about my country. I don't think we are particularly unique or better than many other countries who have managed to provide and maintain a good dose of liberty within our social arrangements.

Blatham wrote:

Sorry, but I happen to think such a formulation describes something real in the world.

As evidence for the thesis, we can move away from the presently ticklish issue of war, and look at some other aspects.

Nice try to avoid the issue which is-----Patriotism and your possession or lack thereof in regard to defense of YOUR country-----would you take up a weapon and defend your country, home and family? Just answer the question please.

They asked such 30 years ago, when it came to descission, if people were accepted as conscientious objector.
No one hahd had the idea that this could have to do anything with patriotism at all (and since 25 years ago no-one asks this stupid anymore).

Hohum, Perception. It does not require patriotism to defend one's country - merely a fairly rational sense of self-preservation or enlightened self interest. Of course, a certain emotionalism might help in getting large numbers to do so - which is explicable enough in "selfish gene" theory - and need not, I think, be romanticised, need it? This does not detract from the individual courage of those doing the defending - but chest-beating and challenges to others about whether they would do it, or not, seems unnecessary. History suggests we will all defend ourselves. The misty-eyed irrational part of patriotism seems necessary to get us to attack others, or to "defend ourselves" against those who have not yet attacked...

Ants will boil out to defend their nest against a neighbour -- but an observer would be hard put to judge one from another.

I agree with all that Letty said, but maybe not with whatever someone else may infer from it.

Oh, good! Disagreeing with blatham, just like old times. As a matter of fact, there are reasons to think Canada unique, or nearly so, and better than nearly all others - on balance.

Flag burning was discussed earlier in this thread. Would you care to give your reaction to the US flag burning in the Philippines today during President Bush state visit.

I placed the new topic under Philosophy and Debate
entitled "US Flag Burning in the Philippines

Thanks for bringing my attention to Letty's post roger. It was an excellent one.

roger

(vigorous handshake...but with trick buzzer) Nice to see you too...missed ya.

There are, as I said, things about the way this place (Canada) has bumbled along which I DO like...the French/English agglomeration, the fairly widespread notion that government can arrange social safety-net programs without turning into Beezlebub, BC bud. We seem to be, in many ways, rather closer to European countries in our social arrangements than we are to our southern neighbors (though there has been no small pressure from that neighbor to do things 'the right way').

There is though, a curiously two-faced or ironical aspect to our national pride...we aren't really allowed to voice it or even to spend any time thinking it. Nationalist or patriotic fervor is considered in bad taste - rather low-brow actually, like wearing striped pants with a checkered jacket or passing up a radio station playing Dylan for another playing Abba.

The irony is that we can be terribly proud of our lack of pride. I'm quite at home with this personally, being a deeply self-conflicted egoist.

I'll make one more argument sure to get me in some hot water here. Perc has a point, but there is a corner to it which ought to be noted, and which relates to Letty's thoughts on a veteran's possible viewpoints.

My first premise is that soldiers are indoctrinated. Our social training is (it must be) turned on its head to allow for acts which under normal conditions are considered inhumane or deeply evil; eg., torture, sticking a flame thrower into a tunnel with people in it, etc. A necessary component of such indoctrination is an accentuation of differences between 'us' and 'them', an accentuation which has predictable oppositional outlines - we are good, they are evil...we are closer to the angelic, they are closer to vermin, etc. This appears in the rhetoric of Osama, but also in the rhetoric of Bush. Soldiers get this stuff full blast.

The second premise is that the more militaristic a state is, the more these sorts of notions will be broadly promoted within that state. That's why we intuitively become alerted and uncomfortable when we see nationalist fervor elsewhere.

Where Perc has a point, and it relates to the dilemma here, is that enemy states do pop up and threaten. When that occurs, we have to set all this ugly ugly stuff into motion.

And there is a third premise here too. When a state is of the more militarist variety (and I definitely consider the US to fall in this category), certain sorts of personality types will move to the foreground. George Patton or Rommel might be examples - warfare as challenge and excitement and purpose. These types PROMOTE a sense of threat or emergency.

Premise the last...the institutionalization of warfare (this is Eisenhower's argument) forwards the entire militarist dynamic within a society. Sword makers think war a nifty thing. The classic example were the big steel producers who, when the railroad boom began to slow down (everyone now had rail lines and boxcars), their market was dwindling, so they began making and promoting cannon.

If the preceding premises are correct, and if they don't omit some other factors of importance, then one ought to be deeply concerned indeed regarding the degree of financial activity in the US related to military products and services.