Is Patriotism Obsolete?

i believe patriotism is something that can do nothing but divide people. we need to think about expanding our horizons and forming alliances rather than locking ourselves into little boxes.

what happens when a person leaves the country of their birth? do they automatically switch their patriotism to the place they are living, can they take it along with them like something in their luggage?

take my situation-i am not allowed to vote either in the country i was born or in the country where i live. but i am expected to pay taxes in both-they have an agreement so i am not double taxed, but in theory where does my tax money belong?

love of one's country should not be a political issue-and love of another country does not make a person a traitor. we have student visas and work visas and we have dual citizenships-why not multiple citizenships? i am non violent so i wont fight in anybody's war, i will gladly pay taxes but i think it would be fair to pay them where i am living.

i never celebrate holidays, cant help you on that one...

as far as 'demand sacrifice for the good of the state' etc...i think that would be referring to a type of government. i would be glad to sacrifice whatever i can for the good of People, in any state it does not matter, any country. i do not sacrifice for a 'state' or 'nation'.

Hey nice topic .:flowers: ...

I subscribe to the Age of Enlightenment version of patriotism ...

[QUOTE]"patriotism was defined as devotion to humanity and beneficence.[2] For example, providing charity, criticizing slavery, and denouncing excessive penal laws were all considered patriotic.[2] In both ancient and modern visions of patriotism, individual responsibility to fellow citizens is an inherent component of patriotism." [8][/QUOTE]


I don't think that patriotism is obsolete ... but i do believe that national boundaries are. So yes nationalism is obsolete, but the devotion to humanity ... we need more than ever. Our laws etc. all presume national boundaries. How do we preserve and express the patriotism when our national boundaries are meaningless?

CMJL

Patriotism is simply the love of one's country - which is quite different from nationalism, which can be summed up as "my country, right or wrong." A patriot loves his country enough to dissent, to speak up when the government acts inappropriately. Remember what Jefferson said, "The highest form of patriotism is dissent."



I always looked at barbecue, beer and fireworks as things we got right.



In accordance with the definitions I advanced above, I think patriotism demands a great deal of the individual - but instead of sacrifice for the good of the state, patriotism demands that the individual have the courage to stand against the state.



Typically, paying taxes is patriotic. However, if the individual believes that the government is misusing the money to such an extent that paying taxes is harmful to the nation, then refusing to pay taxes becomes a patriotic act of civil disobedience, Thoreau style.

I think Socrates was quite right - true patriotism will demand doubt and questioning of the state.

Salima, you seem to be taking 'patriotism' in the modern, nationalistic sense. That sort of patriotism, as we have so often seen, often encourages conflict in pursuit of supremacy.

I have read several reports of Indians being in the grip of a fervent nationalist patriotism as the nation moves toward economic superpowerdom (an ambitious goal that I'd bet will be derailed by a host of environmental and security threats). This sort of patriotism, particularly when bolstered by a sense of historical grievance, is manna from heaven to a shrewd politician. It literally begs to be exploited.

Then there is the form of patriotism endorsed by CMJL. It sounds typically Canadian and at least mildly socialist. With some trepidation I'll say it even seems to accord with Christian doctrine and, I assume, other faiths.

While I have an abiding love of my country, like most of my fellow Canadians I intensely dislike jingoistic nationalism.

To the extent one embraces patriotism I suppose it's a very individualistic pursuit, a collage of this much of this type and that amount of that aspect and perhaps none at all of this other. I'd bet it's the rare person who accepts patriotism in all its aspects.

A patriot would die for his country but his country is his values.If by chance my government has no values it goes against my country and i will oppose that government for my countries sake.I am arrogant enough to believe my country has my values.

Patriotism clearly does embrace civil disobedience as a means to attempt to rectify or reform the state as, for example, in the case of constitutional abuses. I found it a bit disappointing that there was so little civil disobedience in response to the abuses of the Bush administration. Perhaps that was a manifestation of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

RDRDRD1 Oh yes I am the typical Canadian and 'mildly' socialist. You bet. I am also Christian so good call there too. Nice catch on my biases! Impressed (dismayed that they are so apparent, but still impressed)

I am also married to a Shia Muslim, best friends with an atheist, and work everyday with biologists. None of them would agree to be patriotic wholesale but all of them would agree to the 'devotion to humanity' stance. I guess that leaves us with the question, is that patriotism? Is this devotion to humanity another name? If not, then I guess patriotism is obsolete. If the answer is yes, then we need to redefine what modern patriotism is in this global environment.

---------- Post added 08-01-2009 at 12:39 PM ----------

Xris your defining post was helpful. Thanks. Do I think my country represents my values? Sometimes, but certainly not always. Without that always, I could not commit to dying for my country unconditionally. But, I couldn't say I would never commit to dying for my country either. Depends. Not sure where that leaves me in the camp of patriots.

I cant believe my fellow man has less values than mine and if he has his wrong.I must maintain my belief in humanity.

Patriotism will always have a place I think.

It's love or appreciation of ones' own 'community'. Unfortunately, as some of you have mentioned, many two-dimensionalize the concept; taking it too far to the extremes. There's also the complication that comes from one expression of patriotism where you're going against what your being told to do - in order to do what you see to be 'the right thing' for that community. Being patriotic, to me, doesn't include being blind or unethical.

Thanks

To me patriotism is being proud of where you come from. What I mean by being proud is innocent celebration and not harming others by being racist.

yes, i took it to be the same as nationalism. the edit to the OP must have included the definitions after i posted. but either way, i try not to see the world as being cut up into little parcels, though i know there are political and geographical boundaries. it reminds me of being in high school when there was a football game and the kids would beat up the ones from the visiting school. why? just because they need someone to fight with? schools fight, countries fight, tribes fight, families fight, religions fight-it's all the same, divisive.

in the world if you look at nature, climate, there are individual regions, but boundaries are less distinct and their similarities and differences overlap. there is beauty everywhere, something to love and something to be proud of, something to fight for and protect, something to cherish and want to build into something better.

Salima, what is your sense of this new Indian patriotism, the nationalist kind that can be readily found even in The Times of India? With India riding an economic tiger and Pakistan next door staring into an abyss, this nationalistic patriotism strikes me as worrisome. We don't have to go back in time very far to recall another country where this sort of patriotism was manipulated into mass support for a foreign war.

Is patriotism an affront to individualism? Does it demand sacrifice for the good of the state and its people in good times as in bad, in peace as in time of war?

I'd be delighted if someone would weigh in on the question of patriotism (in any form) versus individualism. It strikes me that the non-nationalist variety, the commitment to the 'common good', sounds like the altruism that is supposed to (at least in theory) attend socialism.

EDIT: No, patriotism isn't inherently an affront to individualism. It depends on how it's expressed.

I don't think the ideal form of patriotism necessarily includes a commitment to the common good. Patriotism is love and/or loyalty of your country in this context and infers no direct correlation to how that love/loyalty is expressed. Sure, they're related and intertwined concepts in this setting, but are a far cry from being part-and-parcel, one to the other.

Altruism isn't patriotism, nor is patriotism necessarily altruistic. Further, in my opinion, the best patriotism hasn't anything to do with altruism. What's more, it's a tough bill-to-fill to try and compare/contrast individualism with patriotism; again, since they're not mutually exclusive. One can be fiercely individualistic (respecting and prioritizing the individual) yet simultaneously be a 'patriot' - at least that's how I see it.

Hope this helps.

i dont see there is any 'new indian patriotism' going on, unless you mean they are developing some pride and self assurance within the world scene due to their recent accomplishments. that is not going to harm anyone. and their foreign policy is benign to say the least.

i am not quite sure what you mean, if you want to be more specific i might be able to comment further.

Well as you probably know India is in the midst of a fairly massive rearmament campaign. Just this past week the Indian navy launched its first, indigenous, nuclear missile submarine and there are plans for expansion and modernization of the navy's surface fleet and the air force inventory also.

India's navy has declared its intention to establish maritime supremacy from the Indian Ocean to the Sea of Japan which coincidentally blankets every inch of China's coastline.

Pakistan, which of course has no "blue water" navy, has reacted to the launch of the new Indian sub by vowing to counter its threat with new warheads and surface launched missiles.

India has concluded or nearly concluded new treaties with the United States for nuclear technology transfer and defence cooperation and weapons trade. The India-US deals ratchet up pressures to the west with Pakistan and to the east with China which, like any emerging power, has a fear of containment.

A dominant Indian naval presence in this region threatens China's shipping lanes, particularly the tanker routes to the Middle East. That's a threat that no nation would leave unanswered.

India's foreign policy may appear benign to its people but it appears vastly different to its neighbours.

Incorporated into India's new nationalism is a discernable measure of grievance. It surfaces in India's "it's our turn" approach to climate change negotiations. India argues that the West had all the benefits of manufacturing-driven wealth ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. We know that Britain actively thwarted Indian industrialization, particularly in textiles, during the colonial era and therein lies the element of grievance. It's not that they missed the boat, they were never allowed aboard.

It's when you couple rising nationalism with that sense of grievance, of constantly being treated unfairly by another, that what passes for patriotism can be readily exploited by the unscrupulous.

there is talk among people about tension between india and china, but it is only given a passing mention among the issue of food price rises, and in fact all prices rising significantly, coupled with a weak monsoon.

it would be hard to foster any nationalistic attitude in india, it is still very much separated into states, castes, religions, so many divisions. so many of the states want their independence and certain sects of some religions want their own states. the one and only unifying factor that i have seen is cricket.

the vast multitude of the majority here have no idea what the colonization of the british raj might have done to the textile industry and cant feel any gripe over it-there isnt any sense of grievance among the masses. so where is it being sensed and by whom will it be exploited and to what ends?

From what I have read, Salima, this sense of historical grievance is spreading through India's burgeoning middle class, the technocrats, who have become understandably sensitive, perhaps hyper-sensitive, to those in the West calling for protectionism.

Hasn't history taught us that an ideal way of overcoming internal divisions and disunity is to conjure up an external threat? India has ample external threats, to some degree they're of its own making and to some degree the inevitable product of that region's current, difficult circumstances.

I don't know that in a country with India's demographics it's necessary or even possible to mobilize the masses. If one wanted to inculcate xenophobia surely the target segment would be the members of India's "new economy," those who enjoy the new prosperity or realistically aspire to it. That's where the elixir of patriotism and grievance can be exploited.

i am not sure exactly who is benefiting from this economic surge. i believe i am in touch with the middle class ... maybe someone in the big cities are aware of it all, i dont know. but where i live, (which is going to include the vast majority of the middle class and poor, as far as their level of awareness i would think) people are only just beginning to buy life insurance, which is only recently being pushed. very few have thought to dabble in the stock market.

i think there is no way to conjure up an external threat that will overcome india's current internal divisions, they run far too deep. even an immediate natural disaster like earthquake or flood will only temporarily overshadow these fractures in the spirit of india.

whatever you are reading is most likely political and business/economic news, which it appears to me after living here six years only the intellectuals reflect on. but those issues never get through to the masses, therefore the attitudes are limited to just a few people. i am not saying they arent significant, but i dont see ramifications anything at all like what you are suggesting.

Salima I find your observations comforting. I sincerely hope you're right.