Give your patriotism a boost here: Share what makes you feel patriotic

[Dr Doran]

I hate jingoism. And most but not all of the people I've met who think their country is superior to all other countries on some scale, no matter what country they are from, have struck me as highly provincial.

But people need to love their country in the same way they need to love their family, their community, and so on.

- Most people need to for their own sake, psychologically;

- and they need to for its sake, because if they don't, then no one will fight for it.

As few military invasions as my country (the USA) has endured, and as unlikely as it is to endure one in the near future, this latter issue is a constant threat in human affairs that will never go away. Ever. I believe this because I study history and because I also study human nature from the perspective of evolution and evolved propensities. And that's why I appreciate our armed forces.

I am pretty cosmopolitan and can learn languages fairly well and could live in a variety of places. France, Poland, Italy, and England come to mind. The first and the last are the most familiar and homelike to me; the second and third fascinate me and offer fine cuisine, interesting history and architecture, and a convivial social life, but I doubt I could ever consider myself a member of their country, only a resident.

When I think about why I am impressed by my country, though, here is why:
1.) A historically almost unprecedented experiment in democratic representation

2.) This experiment was based upon Enlightenment ideals that all persons are valuable and inherently worthy. Made in the image of the Creator (even though I don't believe in gods, I believe in the greatness of this idea)

3.) This experiment COUPLED WITH the country's natural resources and geographical location resulted in unprecedentedly high standard of living for an unprecedentedly large number of people judged both in terms of raw numbers and in terms of percentage of the country's total population.

4.) #3 has permitted or encouraged an absolutely unprecedented number of inventions, ideas, artworks, etc. into the world.

5.) #2 has allowed an environment to exist in which it is considered unpatriotic to stifle someone else's ideas almost no matter how crazy they seem, unless they are physically dangerous in a fairly immediate way.

6.) A relatively uncorrupted police force which has usually kept order in a fairly sensible way for the majority of people.

Lastly, the existence of a vast network public libraries with which anyone, should he be so inclined, may read about anything in a comfortable, safe atmosphere

And it's that last one that brings the occasional tear of gratitude to my eyes. I do love the patriotic songs, though, too, of various nations, including this -- but as a SONG, I don't think any nation can beat La Marseillaise, regardless of its violent lyrical content and suspect Napoleonic (and thus not very democratic) pedigree.

 

[Nighthawk]

Playing Devil's Advocate here: Doran (and anyone else), would a benevolant tyrant be better than a democracy (or, rather, a constitutional republic, of which the U.S. is)? We debated this a bit in my philosophy class.....

NH

 

[Chas]

I hate jingoism. And most but not all of the people I've met who think their country is superior to all other countries on some scale, no matter what country they are from, have struck me as highly provincial.

Unfortunately, these are the same people who vote (?!!) and show a shocking lack of depth in their reasoning powers. They also tend to be poor and ill-educated, and governments can count on them to serve as willing and enthusiastic cannon fodder for whatever sick and evil military adventures they dream up.

 

[Dr Doran]

Unfortunately, these are the same people who vote (?!!) and show a shocking lack of depth in their reasoning powers. They also tend to be poor and ill-educated, and governments can count on them to serve as willing and enthusiastic cannon fodder for whatever sick and evil military adventures they dream up.

I vote. Always. All the time. I never fail. And I don't vote for invasions a whole lot.

I think it is unpatriotic not to vote.

Nighthawk, I LOVE DEVIL'S ADVOCATES and always have. I asked my dad when I was 8 years old that very question (whether we might be better with a benevolent dictator, or perhaps a benevolent king). He said "Well, what happens when he dies?" And that got me to believe that regardless of the problems of democracy or a democratic Republic, it's better than the alternatives. In most cases, at least. (I'll never forget how cool my dad was to point that out!)

 

[Chas]

I guess what bothers me about patriotism and nationalism is that whatever your government tells you is in your (?) (their) interest invariably treads on the rights and needs of people living in other countries.

And the most bellicose and toxic patriots justify it by wrapping themselves in the flag, and demonizing those who disagree with them as being "unpatriotic".

 

[Dr Doran]

I guess what bothers me about patriotism and nationalism is that whatever your government tells you is in your (?) (their) interest invariably treads on the rights and needs of people living in other countries.

And the most bellicose and toxic patriots justify it by wrapping themselves in the flag, and demonizing those who disagree with them as being "unpatriotic".

#1 is but a small (though not insignificant) portion of the thing that could be called patriotism.

#2 I agree with wholeheartedly and I see it a lot.

 

[Nighthawk]

I think it is unpatriotic not to vote.

While I myself find it patriotic to vote, as I stated in my first post to this thread, I don't necessarily think it is unpatriotic NOT to vote. If one feels no candidate is fit, wouldn't it thus be patriotic to not vote for anyone?

Just some more food for thought.

nh

 

[Dr Doran]

While I myself find it patriotic to vote, as I stated in my first post to this thread, I don't necessarily think it is unpatriotic NOT to vote. If one feels no candidate is fit, wouldn't it thus be patriotic to not vote for anyone?

Just some more food for thought.

nh

If you REALLY hate them both, OK. But voting isn't about who you really love and feel a great connexion to (although this Presidential election seems to be an exception for many, including me). Voting is usually about choosing the lesser evil. Normally I say to myself "I don't like this schmuck, but are the people he is beholden to going to push him to do what I think is important or not?"

 

[Nighthawk]

^ Hmm, so maybe if you don't like any candidate (remember, there are usually more than two candidates in elections ), then running for office, if for the right reasons, is one of the most patriotic things one can do.

NH

 

[Dr Doran]

^ Hmm, so maybe if you don't like any candidate (remember, there are usually more than two candidates in elections ), then running for office, if for the right reasons, is one of the most patriotic things one can do.

NH

Running for office is marvelous.

I put my vote behind the best likely candidate. I won't vote for Nader. He has no chance and I want my vote to go to someone who has a chance.

Everything is a balance between ideals and practicality. I'm not a purist in any impractical sense.

But back to the topic. That painting of the three Revolutionary War soldiers, one drumming, one with a flute, and the other doing whatever it was that he was doing ... that gives me a little frisson of patriotism, I must confess. So does that Iwo Jima photo where they are putting the flag up.

 

[Chas]

Personally, I find this to be what strikes me to be stirring.

The guys in the tanks undoubtably considered themselves patriots.

 

[reetpleat]

I hate jingoism. And most but not all of the people I've met who think their country is superior to all other countries on some scale, no matter what country they are from, have struck me as highly provincial.

But people need to love their country in the same way they need to love their family, their community, and so on.

- Most people need to for their own sake, psychologically;

- and they need to for its sake, because if they don't, then no one will fight for it.

As few military invasions as my country (the USA) has endured, and as unlikely as it is to endure one in the near future, this latter issue is a constant threat in human affairs that will never go away. Ever. I believe this because I study history and because I also study human nature from the perspective of evolution and evolved propensities. And that's why I appreciate our armed forces.

I am pretty cosmopolitan and can learn languages fairly well and could live in a variety of places. France, Poland, Italy, and England come to mind. The first and the last are the most familiar and homelike to me; the second and third fascinate me and offer fine cuisine, interesting history and architecture, and a convivial social life, but I doubt I could ever consider myself a member of their country, only a resident.

When I think about why I am impressed by my country, though, here is why:
1.) A historically almost unprecedented experiment in democratic representation

2.) This experiment was based upon Enlightenment ideals that all persons are valuable and inherently worthy. Made in the image of the Creator (even though I don't believe in gods, I believe in the greatness of this idea)

3.) This experiment COUPLED WITH the country's natural resources and geographical location resulted in unprecedentedly high standard of living for an unprecedentedly large number of people judged both in terms of raw numbers and in terms of percentage of the country's total population.

4.) #3 has permitted or encouraged an absolutely unprecedented number of inventions, ideas, artworks, etc. into the world.

5.) #2 has allowed an environment to exist in which it is considered unpatriotic to stifle someone else's ideas almost no matter how crazy they seem, unless they are physically dangerous in a fairly immediate way.

6.) A relatively uncorrupted police force which has usually kept order in a fairly sensible way for the majority of people.

Lastly, the existence of a vast network public libraries with which anyone, should he be so inclined, may read about anything in a comfortable, safe atmosphere

And it's that last one that brings the occasional tear of gratitude to my eyes. I do love the patriotic songs, though, too, of various nations, including this -- but as a SONG, I don't think any nation can beat La Marseillaise, regardless of its violent lyrical content and suspect Napoleonic (and thus not very democratic) pedigree.

I agree that the united states is rather remarkable and has much to be proud of.

I think the reason that people like myself are wary of "patriotism" is that it very easily becoes a "my county right or wrong, love it or leave it" attituded any time someone dissents. Adn the fact that it is so common to cloak opression in patriotism. Edited for political content according to the terms and rules of this forum. -HJ


At any rate, I will not malign patriotism, but I will malign the sentiment that makes people think they are better or superior to anyone or anywhere else. We can call that something else.

 

[Dr Doran]

At any rate, I will not malign patriotism, but I will malign the sentiment that makes people think they are better or superior to anyone or anywhere else. We can call that something else.

Chauvinism.

 

[Dr Doran]

The guys in the tanks undoubtably considered themselves patriots.

So did the people standing up to the tanks.

 

[cookie]

But the Irishness in me loves to see 'Norn Iron' give England a thrashing at Windsor Park, or the Irish Rugby team triumph at Landsdown Road, Dublin, or listen to The Pogues or The Fureys, have a shin dig in the local pub with the smell of turf burning in the fire and a pint of the black stuff nestling in my hand...and that makes the Irishness in me proud to have that natural green stuff running in my veins.

Mate one day I will be there....the ancestral homeland (one of them anyways) ...soaking up what you just so beautifully described...for now I have to watch it on TV!:cry: :cry: :cry:

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Playing Devil's Advocate here: Doran (and anyone else), would a benevolant tyrant be better than a democracy (or, rather, a constitutional republic, of which the U.S. is)? We debated this a bit in my philosophy class.....

NH

"Benevolent Tyrant" is, at best, an oxymoron; Tyrants, by nature, are never benevolent. Someone is always oppressed by a Tyrant so that others can reap the benefits.

No. For me, considering the history of the world and the governments we've seen, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic it established is by far the best possibility for free and enterprising people and individual liberty.

As Churchill once quipped, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." It still is true! Unless someone can come up with a form of government that surpasses what the Founders had envisioned for protecting individual liberty and restraining government intervention, I'll stick to the concept of a Constitutional Republic.

One can see, even with a Constitution and the checks and balances that it provides, how difficult it is for a people to protect their Liberties and restrain government. It requires constant vigilance and constant enforcement by each and every citizen. A responsibility which most of us have woefully and regrettably shirked.

-dixon cannon

 

[Dr Doran]

"Benevolent Tyrant" is, at best, an oxymoron; Tyrants, by nature, are never benevolent. Someone is always oppressed by a Tyrant so that others can reap the benefits.

No. For me, considering the history of the world and the governments we've seen, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic it established is by far the best possibility for free and enterprising people and individual liberty.

As Churchill once quipped, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." It still is true! Unless someone can come up with a form of government that surpasses what the Founders had envisioned for protecting individual liberty and restraining government intervention, I'll stick to the concept of a Constitutional Republic.

One can see, even with a Constitution and the checks and balances that it provides, how difficult it is for a people to protect their Liberties and restrain government. It requires constant vigilance and constant enforcement by each and every citizen. A responsibility which most of us have woefully and regrettably shirked.

-dixon cannon

I agree with the Churchill quote.

However, the term tyrant has a slightly more complex origin. We get it from Greek tyrannos which is a non-Greek word. They got it in the seventh or 6th century BC from the Lydians who inhabited Asia Minor. All it originally meant was a person who seized power unconstitutionally. The original Greek tyrants (or, that is, persons upon whom the word tyrant was used) had large bases of popular support and distinguished themselves from the aristocrats. In many cases the tyrants broke existing aristocratic oligarchies and were loved by people (but not by the aristocrats who opposed them; these people usually went into self-imposed exile), often giving a better deal to the masses than they had received from the previous oligarchy. In some cases such as Athens, a tyrannical period seems to have represented a break from constant aristocratic factionalism, and after the tyrannical period, lasting in the Athenians' case for two generations alone, a democracy was established.
So that's the source behind the idea of a benevolent tyrant. It's not originally an oxymoron. The term tyrant began to collect exclusively negative meanings only after its use in archaic and classical Greece.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

From...."give your patriotism a boost here: Share what makes you feel patriotic"....to remarks of just the opposite...and then lessons on something else entirely. Very impressive and what a boost.....

 

[Dr Doran]

From...."give your patriotism a boost here: Share what makes you feel patriotic"....to remarks of just the opposite...and then lessons on something else entirely. Very impressive and what a boost.....

How terribly sorry I am.

I did not mean to make you feel that way.

I love my country.

 

[Nighthawk]

I agree with the Churchill quote.

However, the term tyrant has a slightly more complex origin. We get it from Greek tyrannos which is a non-Greek word. They got it in the seventh or 6th century BC from the Lydians who inhabited Asia Minor. All it originally meant was a person who seized power unconstitutionally. The original Greek tyrants (or, that is, persons upon whom the word tyrant was used) had large bases of popular support and distinguished themselves from the aristocrats. In many cases the tyrants broke existing aristocratic oligarchies and were loved by people (but not by the aristocrats who opposed them; these people usually went into self-imposed exile), often giving a better deal to the masses than they had received from the previous oligarchy. In some cases such as Athens, a tyrannical period seems to have represented a break from constant aristocratic factionalism, and after the tyrannical period, lasting in the Athenians' case for two generations alone, a democracy was established.
So that's the source behind the idea of a benevolent tyrant. It's not originally an oxymoron. The term tyrant began to collect exclusively negative meanings only after its use in archaic and classical Greece.

Well said. That's why I stated benevolant tyrant, not benevolant dictator.

NH