Patriotism: Trash or Treasure?

LOL---You really should change your avatar to a "Bulldog" or a Shark, you've been hiding all that depth and tenacity behind a "bunny face".

Yeppers.
\l/
l-< ; =
/l\

People assume I am harmless. It is very funny. And - I ain't changing it - it helps me get away with a lot.

Bernie, the Slate article provides a clear history of patriotism becoming mindless and evil, with a total lack of honor, and why it should be considered the province of mindless followers.

Something frilly? Bernie, Bernie, I thought you had better taste.

BBB, you and Dys are too challenging by far.

Depth, tenacity , sharp tongue AND honesty- quite a package.

LOL! Don't forget the teef, Perception - and the multiplicatory capacities - we nearly sank Australia, you know!

Perception
Perception wrote: You've got to love a chicken that quacks like a duck----I glad I introduced you to something besides the propensity to cut and paste provacative (SIC) biased political rants. It would do you good to learn something about that brain you don't use much. I did however greatly enjoy the one you just posted about the Neo-Neo-Cons----I hope every "Librul" reads it.

BBB's response: SCROLL

Diane
Diane, I'm sure Blatham didn't mean to shock you. I think he really meant something frilly like fluffy handlebar mustaches.

BBB

Ms. diane

My taste, all the salesladies at the PennyWatchers Megamart dainties counter concur, is imp ekable.

I'm afraid I don't really see a significant difference between the meanings of 'patriotism' and 'nationalism', given that patriots unconnected to any state are a tad difficult to find.

The definition that perc offered up earlier ("one who loves, supports, and will defend one's country") is a bit on the 'over-edited-what-with-ink-prices-being-what-they-are' side. The etymology he notes (from pater - the notion of father/authority) points to the less agreeable aspects of the word - that is, authority - if you don't do what dad thinks you ought to do, he'll kick the **** out of you and feed your carcass to his camels.

So we end up with the conflict of individual judgement versus the demand of present authority. Who were the patriots in the room of generals and staff where the suitcase bomb narrowly missed killing Hitler? Were Halderman and Erlichman greater or lesser patriots than the Washington Post staff?

Trying to get our noggins around these questions, and finding them not easy, we can be tempted to just shrug and conclude it is all merely a matter of viewpoint. The whistleblower, for example, will be held by some as a patriot but by others as the converse - a traitor. Even if we move up in time, and attempt to look for help in some future consensus on the matter, we aren't necessarily aided a great deal (we'll note Coulter's attempt to form a new consensus on McCarthy which better suits her personal views).

Alternately, we can look back in time and attempt to discern intentions and agreements inherent in the group's or the nation's formation, hoping this will tell us who the good and bad guys are. But, as the somewhat unbreachable divide we observe in constitutional questions (and in the Supreme Court) demonstrates, we are back to viewpoint again.

Authority, to my mind, is precisely the problem in all this - that is, the looking to authority or the reliance on authority to tell us who is a patriot and who is not. The etymological root points to social organization centered around a single authoritative father. It's not difficult to connect that form of social organization to a King or Pope or warlord or tyrant.

Provisional and temporary leadership, established by vote, along with the underlying valuation of equality amongst community members, seems a fine improvement to me, precisely because it mitigates against authoritarianism.

It seems to me dlowan's definition and interpretation of such claims people such as edgar and dys are immediately judged unpatriotic, and even folks like me fall outside 'patriotism', as well.

I reject this definition.

blatham
You have said it very well. One can love and support one's nation without being jingoist, without mindlessly following just because the present leaders tell us to.

Agreed.

LOL---translation please

As "free" civilians, we can express our disagreement with our president's command of our troops into war. With all the allegations of false intelligence to justify this war, why is it that more Americans are not speaking out? One area this president is losing big are our senior citizens. They are very unhappy with what has happened to their retirement savings inability to earn decent interest, and the continued talk of drug benefits that seem never to come.

ci

Well, that's the first question...why are so many citizens so willing to believe, and then parrot, what comes out of the mouths of leaders or authorities? The second question is...how do we help them evolve out of such social and cognitive infantilism?

It's a cliche to say that a free society is messy, but it is true nonetheless. The other side of that coin is that an authoritarian society is not messy - it has the uniformity of dittoheads. Ten bucks says Rush won't loose much of his audience, they are simply too needy of an authority.

blatham, I'm afriad it's beyond my level of comprehension to understand why "free" societies are so capable to shoot themselves in the foot. It's interesting to see what is happening in Singapore, the city-state that is beginning to loosen it's tight hold on society. They are actually allowing burleque shows in their country, but it'll still cost $500 for getting caught throwing trash in public places, and not flushing public toilets.

ci

I wondered if someone might mention Singapore. Those of us fond of a good spanking wistfully look on it as something of a Shangri-la.

The observation is commonly made that Asian cultures (or many of them) hold a different notion regarding the relationship between the individual and the state. Where we tend to put a high valuation upon indidual rights and liberties, they often see this as being inappropriate, even selfish and socially destructive, and they value group identity and duty moreso. I think this is one of the factors which led the business community to get so rah rah about Asian values - business organizations (like military organizations) not being paradigm examples of liberty lovitude.

Exactly, edgar. These discussions often fail to distinguish between patriotism and jingoism, the fair charges against the latter being aimed at the former.

Speaking of words... I'd never looked up 'jingoism' previously. Very interesting...

Rummie is a jingo

Rummie is a dangerous jingo.

Ah, Sofia - here is my comment on definitions - which I shall leave to Lewis Carroll:

"....There's glory for you!" (said by Humpty Dumpty)

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory.'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean a nice knock-down argument.'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means what just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."