Patriotism: Trash or Treasure?

Perception said: "Dlowan:
You expressed disappointment that the thread has not taken a desired direction----what is that direction?"

Perception, I have said this lots of times on the thread - and caused considerable ire by saying it, so I am surprised you missed it (do you really read what others say? It is a common habit not to).

I had hoped that - at least in part - the contributors on this thread could agree on a common definition of "patriotism" and debate the virtues and vices of the thing with similar meanings in mind. I recognize that FINDING an accepted common meaning is difficult - so I looked it up in a number of places, and gave a definition in the initial post which summarised the definitions I had read.

In the event, many people saw that as a pushy and arrogant unwarranted act of over-control - sigh - and have peferred to give an individual and idiosyncratic definition, with which they either agree, and hence embrace patriotism, or greatly detest, and hence attack patriotism.

As I said previously, that is fine - but was not what I had hoped would occur on this thread - or at least, I hoped it would occupy only part of the thread. I am accustomed to debate philosophical issues with a clear definition of terms in mind - although, of course, definitions can be argued over. I enjoy the rigour of such debate, as well as the looser sort of debate which occurs here as well.

So be it.

Since meta-debate about debate is occurring all over the site at the moment, perhaps a thread about the different kinds of discussion, and their strengths and weaknesses would be fun? Hmmmmm - I believe all styles - except personal insult and unthinking chains of insult about one's opponents perceived political or philosophical orientation - are great and have their strengths, BTW.

deb

Is there a particular area of this question (or set of questions) which you would like to further investigate?

Goddammit---I'm tired of "fessing up"-----it's damn well time that the other parties start taking some of the blame for the needless uncivil behavior AND it's time the gallery started showing outrage with the other party.

Dlowan wrote:

"In the event, many people saw that as a pushy and arrogant unwarranted act of over-control - sigh - and have peferred to give an individual and idiosyncratic definition, with which they either agree, and hence embrace patriotism, or greatly detest, and hence attack patriotism".

I believe it soon became obvious that patriotism is such an individual thing that it was impossible for everyone to "settle" on one definition and then to debate the philosophical differences. I didn't detect any hostility toward you for trying to overcontrol but then I confess to not going back and reading every post mainly because this thread was moving at light speed and it did appear to have considerable duplication of thought at times.

I'd love to have your philosophical discussion but how can you when a bully successfully silences one party with a sledghammer and the gallery silently nods their heads. With a topic that evokes so much emotion there will be vast differences of opinion and patriotism is one such topic. As I said your thread has been extremely productive and valuable and it will end only when it's time comes and no one knows when that will be. You might yet see it turn in the direction you want. At this point I am extremely disappointed that all the blame for uncivil behavior has been leveled at me therefore until such time as I see the finger of blame shifted to the proper position I decline to participate.

Perception - there has been quite a lot of uncivil behaviour on this thread - a reasonable amount of it yours.

I am not particularly aware that anyone has especially commented, or not commented on it - except the protagonists involved, to each other (I can think of one exception to this - there may be more). Nobody has asked for rescue, I think, nor received it.

Yes, Setanta was rude to you - you had been rude to Setanta, and others.

The reason for you being separated from the background hubbub of a pretty full on thread (at least for my threads!) was the particular nature of your rudeness - which was unusually vulgar.

I think most people would be able to separate it from the pack, and apologise for it, even if they were intent on pointing out Setanta's, or anyone else's, rudeness.

It might be interesting to do a textual analysis of rudeness on this thread, if one had the time. I suspect you might find the results somewhat productive of a fallen crest...

I hope you do not go off in a huff, rather than acknowledge your part of the problem, and continue.

Simplified definition:

patriotism = giving enough of a damn about your planet/country/nation/neighborhood/home/nest to step outside when you have the need to take a **** and caring enough to either speak up about it or just bend over and clean it up yourself when someone else does not care enough to step outside to take a ****.

Cute - and funny - but, well - it is cute and funny!

I almost did not comment on this, since Craven has responded very thoroughly himself, however, a degree of ruffled fur and blatant self-interest leads me to say something, however superfluous!

One of the things that, I assume, continues to make it difficult for Craven to participate here (I note that he has disappeared a couple of times - and has commented recently, again, about planning to be here less - though I have no evidence that is not for another reason) is the tendency for people to project onto his posts a specialness, or authority, that comes from his role on the site - or, at least, to imbue them with a particular visibility and, especially, to become particularly incensed about them. Perception, for instance, you only really commented furiously about, or after, Craven's comments, I think, and this seems to happen often, with many of us.

Now, I understand that there is a certain paradox to having a site owner posting both as a member, and as the owner. I gather this was not Craven's desire, nor intention - but that events rather took over...ie the site taking off wildly.

I would hope, therefore, that we might have the ability, as members, to recognize and handle the issue without moving into an empirically totally unjustified emotional state of blame and accusation against Craven - such as the current accusation of partiality, when no impartiality was claimed - or the oft-recurring canard that people cannot attack Craven beause of his position. I say empirically unjustified because I have seen no evidence that Craven uses his position - in fact, I would observe that he takes more abuse, personally, (including, sometimes, from me, she said blushingly) than would most people, without complaint or action, just because of his position, and the possibility that some might see such action as an abuse of power.

I say self-interest, because, in a board filled with people whose contributions I cherish and/or learn from, Craven is right up there amongst the folk I learn from and enjoy arguing with (usually...grrrrr - we all know that his style can be very challenging indeed, when one is at the receiving end - but, when I have calmed down, I usually find that I have benefitted from the challenge very much, and probably shifted my view - just as with other straight shooters- LOL!) most - as Perception has acknowledged, even in taking a pot-shot: "You at least rile people up to be controversial..." I would, therefore, hate to see him posting less because of the complexities of his position.

Ahem, rant over - retiring to burrow to settle fur down....

(Hope you don't mind the rant, Craven....)

[I definately declare that I'm immune versus Dutch pornographic attacks! :wink:
(And, nimh, I don't mean just strolling around De Wallen :wink: ) ]

oh my!

Yes, we are back at Lear

At the Irish web site i like to visit, the participants quote to one another, when it seems necessary, that one ought to attack a post with which one disagrees, without resorting to personal remarks. They state it simply: "Attack the idea, not the person."

I'm not claiming any special virtue here, because i have attacked people personally. I've my faults and don't deny them. My principal beef with Perception is that i find he sneers and makes personal remarks when someone attacks his ideas as opposed to himself. He takes it as a personal affront that something he writes would be laughed to scorn by another member. He reacts to negative comments about the Shrub and his light-fingered crew as though it were a personal remark about him, and as though that authorizes scurility in his replies to whomever has done so.

The only time i have ever mentioned "beastiality" in these fora, it has been a part of the long-standing "meta-joke" (to apply a Wabbitian strophe) about sheep. This has never involved my suggesting it were anything i did myself. When i've made comments about other members perhaps being a bit too friendly with sheep, it has been members about whom i was confident that it would be taken in good humor.

I don't recall, or perhaps didn't see this notorious post of Perception. Suffice it to say, that i personally would not have opined that any scurrility were beneath what passes for dignity on his part.

Now - shall we all shake ourselves and resume arguing as normal? Remember, we are here to fight about paaaaaaaaaaatriotism....damn!

Well, fer starters, i would like to resume with what i had offered before about how patriotism likely arises--which is to say, the affection which an individual attaches to place, persons and culture made familiar by the long association of residence. I would be interested to know if, without consideration for with what the term is so often politically freighted, this can be used as a talking point. If not, how would one qualify such an idea? If one rejects it out of hand--once again, without political baggage, how would one then define patriotism?

I think it might help to "start over," as in, re-establishing terms with which we can continue the discussion.

Hmmmm - how then does this feeling stretch to cover a whole country? I suspect, meself, that it arose in a kind of territorial imperative in pre-history, rather than being learned - though I do think that PART of it then associated with a familiar landscape and - less so, until we come to a consciousness that there are other cultures - culture.

You mentioned this before. I personally tend to think that "stretching" patriotism to national borders arises from and is necessary to the political exploitation of patriotric feeling. Your point about not being aware of other cultures is telling, in my view. It was probably the original gorilla in the the demagogic exploitation of patriotism. As in: "Look at the way they live, they aren't human!"

At which point, the Dalek minset takes over: "Extrerminate, exterminate . . ."

LOL! I love the Hitch-hiker's Guide, Book whatever, description of the origins of cricket - you know, the Krikkit, who live on a gloomy, eternally cloud-bound planet, gather their resources over millenia, and, eventually, achieve space flight. Soaring, for the first time, above their sad, dark home, they see the glories and jewels of the illimitless universe arrayed in splendour in front of their eyes.....

"It'll have to go!" they said...

Although, of course, we are a questing beast when it comes to difference..."Arrrrrrrr! Them folk in that there next village, they be rrrrright queer, they be!"

Possibly random idea:

I read somewhere recently (and heck if I know where) that people and animals have such a strong sense of "fairness", that they will go without rather than succumb to a perceived unfairness. It worked something like:

One person is given $100 to share with another. One person dictates the terms, the other accepts or not. If the terms are not accepted, nobody got any money.

What they found was that only the relatively fair distributions were accepted -- 60/40, 50/50. If $20 was offered, even though the acceptor would receive $20 more than nothing, the acceptor almost always declined.

Another random concept:

I read another study (yes, I read a lot of studies, I'm a geek) about how people bond. There are a lot of ways, of course, but one way that adults bonded was when under forced trying circumstances (think bad teacher, or snowbound in a cabin for a week), especially when there was an identifiable cause, or enemy. (Bad teacher, snowstorm.)

I think that as long as there have been politicians, and that is a long time, an element of ruling has been to demonize the other as a tactic to unify the ruled people. For there to be an other, there needs to be an us.

I'm not quite sure how I think the first concept applies to the second -- if seemed to when I started this post, but now I can't recall. I'll leave it anyway.

Once we have an other and an us, patriotism arrives. I am not sure we can say it is intrinsically bad any more than sex is intrinsically bad. Some of it is, some of it is used to sell things, some of it is shallow, some of it is used to influence thinking, some of it is passionate and deeply felt. Some of it is influenced by what we read, what we learn, who we interact with. But I think it also comes from a rather primal human place, and the thing to do is to be careful to practice safe patriotism, rather than denying the drive altogether.

deb

I think we can gain a helpful view of this if we put territory and 'family' (me, mom, siblings...sometimes, adult males) together. Though we have words for both of these aspects, they occur in unison, though that 'territory' maybe temporary.

Primates group in a variety of structures, but the above holds true in all cases. Thus the unit which means 'us' is defined by association and location.

Primate troops can be quite large (don't recall top end figures), certainly dozens of individuals in baboon troops, for example. This sort of size means that the genetic relationships will sit on a scale from parent/child to no relationship (baboon females, at puberty, leave their own troop and enter another with which they likely have no genetic relationship at all...something similar to this is why my daughter likes sailors).

But that troop is a unit, and the individuals within it identify themselves in this way.

Human groups lived nomadic existences, probably quite like various primates do now. The normal situation, as it appears at about 20 or 30 thousand years ago, was a seasonal shift between two main territories. Permanent territories begin about 10 or so thousand years ago with the development of domestication of wheat and animals. At about 7000 years ago, permanent cities may have held up to 5000 individuals (see Catal Huyuk - a site that'll knock your socks off).

It's not easy to figure out what factors allow human animals to group in such large numbers, but the ability to abstract must be a significant part of this. We might also note that, just as with other primate groups, there isn't just one overarching membership with which we identify, but all sorts of combinations - play buddies, family, adult friends, the bowling team, etc.

I suspect that the 'loyalty' component is much the same in all cases...and it is an us/not us dichotomy. But 'patriotism' seems applicable to the overarching membership.

So now we're back (though no one else might recognize it) where I was after my dog walk the other night. Recognizing I would defend an immediate group I am bonded to - and trying to figure out what larger group that would stretch to, in terms of loyalty/patriotism/other chosen terminology. And trying to figure out how that stretch happens.

and i'm still mulling. the dogs are getting some good walks out of this thread.