My first response on reading your post, lekatt, was pretty much “What the fuck?”. I really don’t see what any of what you said has to do with my position whatsoever; you’re right when you say you don’t understand it, I think. I’ll try to be more understanding of yours, though.
And good for them (and you) I say. These acts are definetly worth both remembering and earn my respect and admiration.
As do I.
Well, I would say the lack of a war requiring a draft makes that possible. Plus you seem to be forgetting that with a volunteer army there are still people of this generation fighting - and, indeed, they are volunterring to do so, rather than being forced. Note that i’m not suggesting all people who fought during a time of draft would not have done so without it; as you point out, you yourself volunteered.
This is pretty much where I started WTF-ing. Where have I suggested giving up? Where, in fact, have I even mentioned the current fighting in this thread? I’m afraid I fail to see where you’ve got from my remarks that I’m somehow in favour of giving up. Could you perhaps point this out to me?
My point is simple, and it is this. A patriot looks at a flag, and says “I revere this, and what it stands for”. And you ask what it stands for, and they say “Freedom, equality, and those people who fought for them”. And you say, hey, I agree, but surely it also stands for those bad things in our history? And they say yes - but there’s also those good things about it. My point is; why not just revere freedom? Why not just say “I respect and admire those people who have fought for freedom”? Why do we need to bring in a general symbol - the flag - which embodies also many wrongdoings, when instead we can just go straight to the actual good things?
I imagine the argument would include a good dose of Realpolitik - namely, that in order to preserve and protect the good things, it is occasionally necessary to do the bad things. A citizenry too devoted to freedom and justice as such might refuse, say, to fight a war they deemed unjust. But when you encourage loyalty to a nation - flag, land, race, whatever - and instill the idea that the nation equals freedom and justice, you have a workable way to mobilize people to fight.
To be honest, i’m not sure I see refusing to fight a war you see as unjust as being all that terrible a thing. I suppose it depends; the war may be unjust, but is it necessary? Like you say, there’s a point at which we have to get practical, but I don’t see why that can’t be down to the individual person, too.
Edit: Thinking about it a bit more, I think it’s still pretty much against the spirit of patriotism. If the only reason someone was a patriot was because of their notions of practicality, it does kinda rob the whole thing of any meaning.
Nor do I. But it sure could land you in a world of shit through much of the last century – both with the authorities and the general run of society, who generally have been loyal to the nation in times of war.
i suppose one of the best things the UN could accomplish would be to get everybody to agree that only men 50 years and older would be drafted for military service.
Certainly true. Even just saying you don’t feel loyalty to your country would take some people aback, even if you make it clear you do hold loyalty to particular ideals. But hey, when has being right ever been easy?
No True Scotsman Fallacy. Of course patriotism looks good - if you carefully define it so that only good people are “true patriots”. However, like it or not the man who beats an immigrant to death in order to protect America from foreign contamination or kills a Jew because they are Christ Killers who secretly control America and want to hand it to the UN, are just as patriotic as someone who fights against an actual foreign invader.
As it is “good for giving some people an excuse to feel smugly superior toward people” who are concerned about the extremes of nationalism.
For any smugly superior feeling person who scorns patriotism, there is a Coulter or a Hannity or a Beck who makes concrete Dr. Johnson’s observation that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, smugly parading their (nationalistic) “patriotism” as though that were a virtue.
I’ve just gotten done going through all my old notes on nationalism from various courses, and I would have to say I cannot find a single reason in any definition or description of it to believe that there is anything good in it.
Patriotism–the love of one’s own country–makes sense (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how one perceives that love should be expressed), but nationalism–the belief that one’s own country must be viewed as the best, regardless how evil it might be, and that one should favor any action that will promote one’s nation over any other, regardless of ethics, morality, or common sense–does not seem to carry any good qualities that would not be better served by patriotism. (In fact, in a number of cases, patriotism and nationalism are the words used to identify the good and evil attributes of love of country.)
Indeed. Ignorance doesn’t blend particularly well with condescension, lekatt, so if you have a point to make, please make it— but don’t think you’re scoring any points with these little drive-by snipes mourning our limited capacity for comprehension, which is one of the oldest (and weakest) rhetorical gags in the bag.
I don’t think that nationlism necessarily means that one’s country must be viewed as the best. I see patriotism as pride in one’s country (history, culture, what it stands for) and the willingness to make sacrifices for your country. Nationalism seem to be more of a current-state collective mindset, which may be either good or bad. In the case of Hitler’s Germany: bad. In the case of the greatest country to ever grace the globe, now, or particulalry during WWII: good.
But I do see your point. And if one defines nationalism as you have, I’d agree with you.
Indeed, it’s indisputable that we belong to humanity. Yours is an interesting comment, since it’s certainly worth remembering that despite all our differences, we are all people. But given the large differences in culture and values between different peoples, I’ll have to say that my sense of belonging to my nation is greater than my sense of belonging to humanity. Here I am truly home.
Neither do I. tomndebb, what courses on nationalism did you use where they used this definition? Because I don’t think that’s how academics usually use the word. See my [post=8618799]post #11 in this thread[/post].
Sorry. They were just various chapters in the government or philosophy sections of a multi-discipline Humanities course I had the first couple of years of college. I have notes but no bibliography from 37 - 39 years ago.
Interestingly, in the intervening period I have never encountered definitions that seriously contradicted the ones I was taught. (Patriotism and Nationalism were explicitly taught as the positive and negative sides of the same coin.) I would be curious to see how other academic definitions differ from mine.
I note that I see no specific difference between my definition and the two outlined in Wikipedia. The lead sentence holds that it “is a devotion to one’s own nation and its interests over those of all other nations” (and I would see devotion as being rather more than just enlightened self-interest while “over” carries some definite emotional weight), and when they talk of ethnicity or common culture alongside “destiny,” I see no reason to withdraw my definition.
This does not mean that I am unwilling to consider different definitions, but I have seen no evidence, yet, of a serious distinction from my usage.
But what if the vision of your country pales in comparison to other visions? And this renders ideas like patriotism, and honor and duty to a country unreconcilable with the other vision?
You may check the source I suggested. I don’t remember which definition the author uses exactly, but since I know that he considers nationalism as morally neutral, I’m sure he doesn’t define it as the negative side of anything.
Plus, I believe that patriotism is usually defined as a devotion to one’s state, or nation-state. If the nation you identify with isn’t tied to an independent state, it usually isn’t described as “patriotism”, so it could be hard to argue that patriotism and nationalism are two sides of the same coin. (Unless you’re willing to agree that you can be patriotic towards a nation that isn’t an independent nation-state, but then it only becomes a question of definitions.)
Well, I agree that the preamble of this article does sound mildly negative, but I still didn’t see in it the meaning you ascribe to it. I didn’t take “devotion” as pejorative; I could say that I am devoted to my nation, and it would merely mean that I feel strongly involved in its success, without the connotation of fanaticism. As for the “over”, I could reply with charité bien ordonnée commence par soi-même; or in other words, it’s not that I don’t wish well on other nations, on the contrary, but the interests of the people close to me and similar to me ring louder in my mind.
And anyway, if you look at the different flavours of nationalism described in the article, you’ll find some (liberal nationalism, for example), that are incompatible with your definition.
Why is it wrong to honor, love, and respect something that you are part of only by an accident of birth? The abstract ideas of loyalty to a country are part of what makes modern government possible, and I think we’re all a lot better off with modern government than without it.
Because it’s not worthy of it in this case; I doubt any country is. And because that attitude slides so easily into xenophobia. And because it tends to lead towards self delusion and willful ignorance; when people love, honor and respect something, they don’t want to hear about the bad or stupid things it’s done, so they rationalize them away or ignore them or cover them up.
I tend to disagree with that. I don’t feel any loyalty to my country. Yet I fully support modern government. What part of my views, exactly, mean that more of me would make modern government impossible?
The historical precedent is pretty plain. No nationalism, no government. You’re part of the church, or bound to whoever happens to own the land you work and is strong enough to keep it. But, if you get enough people together who all agree that they’re part of the same culture, share similar values, and are willing to invest in a central authority…you have a government.
Not only do I think it’s natural to have pride for (and loyalty to) the people and culture you come from, I think it’s pretty unnatural not to.
