Is patriotism a good or bad thing..

I think patriotism is a love for our country. I don't think that can be bad really. I think a lot of people are sort of xenophobic, so if someone is unpatriotic they feel scared and angry; but the problem there is xenophobia not patriotism. People can't be controlled by true patriotism nor can they be driven to violence by it, what politicians are using to control people in these instances is the people's stupidity. See when you love a person, and that person tells you to kill someone to prove your love, and you do it, that's stupid. Because you don't need to prove love through your actions, it naturally shows in your actions. To say that someone can tell you what is a loving/patriotic thing to do is counter-intuitive. I think a lot of you people are getting mad at stupidity, not patriotism.

And Patriotism is a good thing, because a love of one's country will lead one to good actions. You will be kind to others and give to others because they are your fellow country men. You will fight and protest for the prservation of those ideals your country holds dear. You will defend the land and people that make up your home when they are attacked, regardless of the government, because your courage derives from a love of your country not from the mandates of your government.

A phrase I've been hearing a lot is "Think Globally, Act Locally." I think this is incredibly true and applicable when we think of patriotism. Because while you may hold values of universal love and helping the world, these values can be best put to use in patriotic love and helping your community. If only this matter (far simpler and easier to attain than those grandiose values which are more admirable) of patriotic love is held by all people we will naturally achieve universal love soon after.

 

Very true statement. But we can also picture how tough it will be and almost understand it. Of course until we actually deal with it on a daily basis we won't ever fully understand.

 

I think that anything is a bad thing if you're doing too much of it. more importantly,we have to be citizens of earth-- have patriotism about being human-- not about being american...

 

So, are you saying you could love too much, or give too much, or pray too much. Personally I think monks, the epitamy of indulgence in goodness, are freakin' awesome. Do you hate monks?

 

Patriotism = Good.

Nationalism = Good.

They equal about the same things, to me, except one goes a bit further beyond and devotes him/herself to the furthering of the present culture of his/her own country and gives it precedence over any other culture (it is not necessary, as some suggested here, to be closed minded to any other culture in order to be a nationalist). The nouns may as well lead to the same definition in today's world. The only problem is that they've become subjective. They atleast have the ability to connotate the same thing, and extending beyond the semantic relationship, you have to question whether they both hold any merit to you at all.


The problem is, being "patriotic" and a "nationalist" are all defined by the person and are not at all of an objective nature, truly.

I believe that dissent is a good thing, or can be, given the nature of the government at the time. Honestly, as far back as I can remember, never could dissent have been considered a bad thing as there was always something egregious to which the government had decided to dedicate itself, be it because the government believes it necessary for security, or, most recently, to appease corperate entities.

"Is patriotism a good thing or bad thing?", which is what you asked, is a bit of a simplistic question, though, at the risk of sounding like a dick.

Before you ask that question, you first should probably define it for yourself. I think it's a good thing, but my form of patriotism may be different from yours. If you view patriotism as sending young men to die for the profits of Mc.Donnel Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed/Martin and Enron, well, in my opinion, you're in no way a patriot. Basically if you feel a strong debt of gratitude to your current government, you're both an idiot and not a patriot.

 

Truthfully? I believe whole-heartedly that jealousy and its incidentals of vindictiveness and ruthless competition and 'spite for' most is natural and is not an incidental to our cultural values, which is evident in the most basic of tribes in our world, which is exactly the reason why communism and socialism won't work, why the universal love in the '60s was a myth and exactly the reason why "peace on earth" is an absurd and ridiculous concept and the reason why every person on earth won't love you like a brother. You want everyone to love you? Good luck. Force some lysergic acid into their bodies -- all of them -- or fall asleep and never wake up; that's the only way you'll ever have that "truth" ever bestowed upon you and your world.

 

While I agree somewhat, I believe if you take that train of thought futher, the phenomena you refer to can apply to any given word (obviously not ALL of them, but most) at some level. I realise I may as well be asking you what your ice sculpture of George Bush represents, but I'm ignoring that for the sake of the discussion.

Definition was the point of this experiment. I'm interested in how different people define patriotism and nationalism. Obviously no-one's idea of it is the same, because if it was we would all feel the same way about it.

The problem you are getting at is the nature of language. I guess a larger vocabulary helps somewhat, but we all victim to it.

I would like to know your reasons for this? You think that spite and jealousy are a product of evolution perhaps (I doubt you do, but the way you said it makes me think that)? I personally hold a conficting belief, I believe that it is not hard in certain situations to put aside differences. If someone is getting mauled by a bear, no matter who that person is, people tend to care about it (unless that person had been mauling other bears. Then, I suppose, it is not the bears fault). I could be wrong, we all live in a world of assumption, don't we?

I assume the reason you believe that peace, love and people can't coexist, and feel so strongly about it, is because you yourself have felt spite and anger towards others in your past (maybe present) and have felt guilty about it.. maybe like those feelings are wrong, for whatever reason, and as a result been trying to convince yourself that those feelings are perfectly natural.. then trying to cultivate and reinforce that belief because otherwise you wouldn't be accepted into the tribe..? That is why we try to improve anything about ourselves, no?

Sorry, that's not a personal dig, I'm just trying to prove a point for my own fucked up, no-hope-in-hell cause. I guess what I'm trying to say, but in doing so have totally contradicted myself, is : I agree with Satch.

 

No, Josh the small, i don't hate monks, and you know i didn't mean what i said in that context. Perhaps i should just come out and say what i mean: I mean if you overidentify with a nation instead of the people, then that would be a bad example of patriotism. (In MY opinion)

However, if you are identifying with a common "people" of your society- of your country- then, as you put it, you are out there helping, and trying to spread happiness and betterment of your society.

People identify too much with the nation and are therefore classified by political and/or religious beliefs, and all i am saying is that its too much. It is too much of a good thing-- pride, self confidence, if you will. You need some, and you need to feel a part of something, but c'mon...

Nothing against the monks, and love and goodness and being one is the way, and it is a beautiful thing. I hope to get closer to them in another conversation.

Peace and Love

 

I don't truly believe that to be true. It's not exactly a semantics argument. I mean, things of a similar nature can be extrapolated to such a degree as to mean nearly the same thing, but things that are the antithesis of each other or are even different enough as to not work in context cannot be paired in any legitimate, intelligent way. According to Webster, Nationalism is a noun meaning a few different things, depending upon the extent to which you allow it to be defined. Nationalism is essentially just a devotion to the culture and interest of one's own country and a belief in the importance of furthering those ends. That is not to say by any means that one must agree with each and every interest in the most egregiously partisan way in order to be a nationalist and therefore nationalism is, at the most base semantic level, the same thing in context as patriotism, insofar as it is the group of acts that further the ends of the patriot.

See the first bit on the nature of semantics in order to see how I feel about that issue.

Is it nature or nurture that an individual gives any two shits that you're being murdered by a bear? I say it's nurture. The society in which you were brought up tells you you are to have compassion for another individual. Take for example, feral children - children born without parents and raised by animals or on their own, such as Victor, the wolf-boy of the 19th century. Scientists are fascinated by these children because they show animalistic traits such as selfishness and unbridled violence without giving any hint of remorse for their actions. One of the feral children tried to eat a scientist's leg as the scientist stood before him and made no qualms about eating a rat alive. Another thing that struck me when taking a sociology class was the fact that there is so much competition and vendictiveness within small, "non-stratified" (bullshit!) tribes. The men would gossip about each other in some of the more evolved tribes. That says a lot right there, but in most of the tribes studied the men would go hunt in small groups, would steal by force the other man's catch and would refuse to share what they had caught with the others in the tribe, including the women and children to whom they had no familial bonds.

Then, ofcourse, you have to look at the people of ancient Rome at the last 200 years before the fall of its Western empire. They were cheering as the local government crucified individuals for the slightest indiscretions, not to mention the fact that they'd watch men murder each other at the coliseum with great pleasure.

Not even to mention the fact that mafia men will kill their good friends and legitimize it in court by saying something to the tune of "it got me respect, money, prestige, power", as you may have read over the years and must certainly have been disgusted by. Or, along the same lines, the fact that our government will have people killed for putting in jeopardy its power structure, or will have someone murdered for putting in jeopardy its power and profits from big business (don't tell me you believe M.L.K. or either of the Kennedys were murdered for any other reason).

I don't believe that's true, although I'm not sure I understand the final question. We try to improve things about ourselves for many reasons, the main being so we can compete on a much greater level in the social hierarchy, so that we may have a better chance of finding a more desirable mate over the other humans in our gender and so that we may better another individual and therefore feel better about our place in life and feel fulfilled.

Honestly, I'm a pretty good guy, as are most people who were raised in a Western culture. I wouldn't want a guy to be murdered and I'd try to stop it if I had the chance (and weren't risking my own life too much). I wouldn't want to see someone sad, but, in all fairness, if I had to destroy another guy's life by way of taking his girlfriend for my own gain, or his job for my own gain, you better bet your ass I would. Why? Because life is a competition. I don't live to see you smile. I don't live to protect your interests; only you live to protect your interests, just as the tribesman lives to protect his interest and his woman's (women's) interest(s). The guy who doesn't believe in competition is the guy who has purposefully blinded himself to the truth of human nature because he knows he cannot truly compete and he's scared of doing so and therefore he shuts himself off to the bitter truths in the world and acts as though we're all one big happy family, which isn't entirely true (we only care about each other insofar as the other person isn't endangering our own happiness and security).

This is also why communism doesn't work. No one wants to work to his own means and receive to his needs except the lazy fuck who can't hack it in a competitive environment (mind you, he still WANTS the things the strong-willed man gets, but will never admit the folly). If a man in the union realizes that, say, hypothetically, he makes a much better guitar (or product X, if you must) than another schmuck, a much more quality guitar on his own, what's stopping him from going out and setting up shop and making more money for a quality guitar than what some other asshole is making? Communist rule, that's what. And that is called "pluralism", man, which is no longer freedom for the people and is an obvious inherant flaw in communism allegorically refered to in "Animal Farm". People like a free-market system because they are allowed to, in theory, anyway, make more money than another individual and take for himself a greater slice of the earth's scarce resources by working harder and making a better product and, essentially, exploiting the weaknesses and short-comings of his fellow man in the competitive game.

Now, do I agree with the convoluted market legislation (campaign finance for example), that makes it easy for a monopoly or duopoly in any market to be set up, or do I even agree with the excessive misappropriation of funds in this country? Nah, not at all, but that's not the point. The point is, people are naturally competitive and people naturally have a desire to have the best for themselves that they can get, be it the best woman/man, or the best car, house, yacht etc. that can show their superiority or even truly the best meat - the best cuisine of any kind. And make no mistake about it, a person is not going to hesitate to better you in the attempt to achieve such a status in the resource game if that person finds they can do so and you cannot. It's social darwinism and it's here to stay because it's natural.

I'm all for peace and love, I'm just not all for blatant denial even in the face of overwhelming evidence. We can love each other, just so long as the other isn't trying to put in danger our safety and comfort-structure. You're not going to love for too long a guy who, at every chance he gets, betters you in an argument in front of your girlfriend, does it in a condescending way, subsequently steals your girlfriend from you and screws her brains out every night. You may try to be pseudo-deep or P.C. about it and say you love all people, but you now despise that motherfucker and you always will, by simple virtue of the fact that he challenged your manhood, and what's more, put in jeopardy your comfort-structure you'd created and ultimately destroyed it for his own gain, capitalizing all the while on your short-comings. This is the nature of life, and we've only shrouded our world in sophistication, never giving any creedence to the biological truths that are pervasive and ubiquitous in our world simply because they lie beneath the surface and are not an enjoyable fact all the time; you cannot avail yourself of this, nor can anyone else.

Make no mistake, though, I am no Reaganite, or ditto-head. I believe that there is a lot of social injustice in our world, and not just in our country, and I do believe that everyone has the right to happiness and I do believe that we should love each other if that's possible, I just don't believe everyone has the same means of achieving happiness and I don't believe for a minute that all of us are equal and I certainly don't believe that we all should, or even are capable of receiving the same benefits in life, short of medical care and a much more respectful minimum wage. I believe competition is natural, and I also believe that we were not meant to love each other unconditionally in the face of any situation, or to live as a social unit. Competition and the desire for a good share scarce resources is always going to be the stake that is driven between us, it doesn't matter if we're in a consumer culture or in a relatively agrarian society. Humans are not capable of living to specified means - we're selfish and subsequently competitive by nature and you can argue against that until you're blue in the face, but you've no evidence to the contrary.

If you'd like, you can ask Jerry Rubin, or any of the other money-hungry ex-hippies (probably living in a loft in the gentrified west Richmond District of San Francisco with a ficus and a poodle) about the '60s myth and see exactly what they tell you. Free love isn't possible, communism isn't possible, and love of all mankind in an unconditional facet is not possible. You can try free love,... see how long it takes you to want to kill the guy who's in there fucking your girlfriend. That happened more often than hippies will like to admit. It was not a "more innocent time" full of more "righteous" people. It was a bunch of young kids and young adults feeling out their youth, mainly postulating bullshit for the sake of it. Look at Abbie Hoffman "Money is the root of all evil... [but I live in a beautiful rent-controlled apartment in the 21-block of Chicago]"... "Free love is a beautiful thing...[except when it comes to Anita]".

I'm not trying to be evil, or mean-spirited, I'm just putting out my side of the argument, and, in this instance atleast, one that I believe has a lot more factual, realistic basis than the hippies'. Don't think for a second that I wouldn't want to live in a humanist's paradise where we're all truly created equal and no decision has a painful counterfactual for another and where there is no competition and where we can all be happy with what we've got and where happiness is abound for us all every second of everyday. You'd have to be nuts not to want that, but you'd also have to be nuts to look at the facts in the world around you and believe that it's possible at all.

 

After reading all that ExistentialPencil, I'll have to admit that you've swayed my opinion towards the neutural side of things.

With me, I see one beautiful girl in the room and every other person disappears. I guess I'm the same with ideals.

I agree totally.. compassion can easily be nullified by a desire to become more of an alpha-male, as it were. However I do feel as if you're implying that the behaviour of a species which is mainly goverened by nature is more valid than one goverened by nuture. The question that plays on my mind is how seperate nature and nuture really are..? It seems to me as if one gives rise to the other. I do not believe that we could have become the dominant species on the planet without the high level of compassion that has played a part throughout our evolution. We have learned to control our emotions and our natural instincts (to a degree), and I believe that the is reason why we are where we are, technologically and morally speaking. So to say that peace, love, and I hazzard to say a deeper understanding of our fellow man is impossible because nature dictates it.. I am not sold. As I understand it, most animals don't show any signs of 'human' compassion because they do not have the level of self awareness (seems to me to be a product of nuture rather than nature) which allows them to identify with other members of their species. That could also be the reason why the feral child acted in the way that he did, and attacked what he percieved to be a member of a different species. With a higher level of self-awareness comes a higher degree of compassion for different species as well as our own, although I suppose that is debatable.

Interestingly enough (and I realise this is going off on even more of a tangent than this thread appeared to be able to do), I once wrote the barebones for an emergent AI which, rather than appearing to act like a human being like most AI's, aspired to think like and essentialy BE the other beings it percieved (although the system was in theory complex enough to never have one have exactly the same thoughts as the other ones). While I won't go into the details, basically it was aware of 'life and death', and one of the interesting emergent behaviours was it's apparent compassion for the other beings which it percieved to be similar to itself. It basically thought, when it percieved others dying, that it was dying itself, and the result of that was that it thought of everything it could to stop it happening to itself and the other entity.

Hmm. Back to the subject I do agree with your points about Patriotism/Nationalism. It's suprising that with a bit of thought something so simplistic on the surface can be so complex. What I really think is that, ideally, we shouldn't have to catogorise the people of the world in the way we do now (by introducing differences between us an them, we lose our ability to identify with them emotionally), and that power should be organised in such a way that these concepts couldn't even exist. I have no clue whether that scenario is possible or impossible, though, and I doubt anyone else in our fucked up world does either.

EDIT : Here are some related articles on compassion for anyone who's interested.. I guess it loosely relates to Patriotism/Nationalism, depending on your definition. Some are premium articles but.. you'll probably get the picture.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg18725094.700.html : Monkeys reflect a degree of empathy

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825242.000.html : Monkey and monkey buisness

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318023.900.html : Inside the mind of a monkey

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3014747.stm : Animals are moral beings

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18324565.200.html : Don't call me clever

 

I'm not buying into Mr. Pencil's view on humanity because I think they are sort of half truths that ignore the inate goodness of people and animals. I think the very language Mr. Pencil uses is meant to be inflamatory to your ego as to control your opinion(, kind of like Patriotism).
But ignoring that, I'm curious to hear how you feel patriotism fits in this amoral system. Because on the one hand, you have the lack of worldly love which would imply war and patriotism and competition on the global scale. But the individual competition of your system makes me think people would never rally together as a nation.

 

On what basis can you justify saying that people are innately good? Is this your own personal opinion or is it backed up by clinical psychological studies? Just curious...

As for animals: they are not innately good nor bad. They just are.

 

Well.. I suppose I see your point.. but I could ask you the same question..?

 

I base it on vague memories of philosphical things I read and a story of some feral boy who showed empathy and extrapolations of the idea of pack/herd society of animals. You can't say there is innate goodness beyond the animal instinct of people, because then it is a product of nurture and it ceases to be innate.
So, personal opinion I suppose. But you'll notice I give it as my personal reason for not buying into Mr. Pencil's ideas, and yeah on the subject of patriotism...

 

fair enough, I'm just pickin' on ya ;-)

 

Well without a definition I didn't vote. What passes for patriotism in the U.S. is a blank check for idiots to do what they want as long as they have some form of authority associated with them. The thought from the Tao was right on in my mind. Another thought from Bob Dylan seems particularly true:'Don't follow leaders'.

My knee jerk reaction is to the common understanding of patriotism; and that reaction is 'no, patriotism is bad'. In lieu of another definition my response to the question is that one.

I just wrote an article on the Jefferson Airplane and in one of their songs, REJOYCE, they say that they would not die for their country and they would rather have their country die for them.

I have no sense of loyalty. Never did. I was not born with one and I find anyone that tries to place restrictions on me is my enemy. My authority is myself.

Sorry that's the way it is.

 

Most stories of feral children have been uncoroborated, and the actual details of the child's early development have never been known. So to base decisions on these stories is not reliable.

Animals show many nurturing and compassionate traits. They will many times foster the offspring of others that have died or can't feed their own. And wolves are pack animals that protect others in their pack.

 

what are we caling patriotism blind following of leaders or love of your country. ithink love of coutnry is good

 

Nationalism is a destructive concept in today's world. Sure we love where we live, but for the vast majority it is by virture of accident of birth! So why is where I live better than where you live? Because "I" live there, of course...which is total bullshit, of course.

We need to love our neighbors, both proximal and distant. We need to look out for one another and care for each other.

We need to understand that all the trouble in the world is caused by a few very rich men who are sick and want to own too much. The people who live in the world are just people - we don't want the trouble and we didn't start it!

As Bob Marley (among others) said, they want to divide us so we fight among ourselves and we are easier to conquer.

 

Style has the right idea. He sounds to me as though he has his head on straight and can think for himself. I wonder...was he homeschooled or perhaps he went to private school. So many young people who have attended the public schools come out brainwashed. To me patriotism is about love of country. It has nothing to do with the government of a country. That is just my two cents worth. Peace 7.65