patriotism

[JimC]

Seraph wrote:

I was saying that the people who kill each other on the battlefield have more in common with each other than with the people they are doing the killing on behest of.

Try telling that to an Australian or British WW2 veteran of battles against the Japanese...

[Hermit]

Seraph wrote:

I was saying that the people who kill each other on the battlefield have more in common with each other than with the people they are doing the killing on behest of.

Try telling that to an Australian or British WW2 veteran of battles against the Japanese...

Yes, I know. The appeal to patriotism works really well, doesn't it? And it works both ways. It takes a lot of patriotic fervour to become a kamikaze pilot, for instance. No matter if the soldiers are Australian, British or Japanese, they are pawns that "can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders" to reiterate Göring's words.

[JimC]

Seraph wrote:

I was saying that the people who kill each other on the battlefield have more in common with each other than with the people they are doing the killing on behest of.

Try telling that to an Australian or British WW2 veteran of battles against the Japanese...

Yes, I know. The appeal to patriotism works really well, doesn't it? And it works both ways. It takes a lot of patriotic fervour to become a kamikaze pilot, for instance. No matter if the soldiers are Australian, British or Japanese, they are pawns that "can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders" to reiterate Göring's words.

In the abstract, from a leftish point of view involving the deluded and much put upon proletariat, they can be put "in common". No one is denying that appeals to patriotism are part of the emotional background to any side in a war. However, in WW2 specifically, you had a fairly overwhelming acceptance by allied civilians and combatants alike that they had, in balance, a just cause, and a need to resist Japanese aggression. Just as high a proportion of officers from monied classes as poor working class soldiers died, perhaps even a higher proportion.

But the key to my statement is that those veterans would truly not have felt anything in common with their Japanese opponents; particularly when they had seen first hand the barbarous atrocities they had committed on prisoners. No re-jigging of history will change that...

If you told them to their face that they were poor deluded fools toiling to save their bosses, and they ought to join with their Japanese comrades, you would hear some very interesting language indeed, then or now... And that would include soldiers with strong union and left leanings as well...

[Hermit]

the key to my statement is that those veterans would truly not have felt anything in common with their Japanese opponents; particularly when they had seen first hand the barbarous atrocities they had committed on prisoners. No re-jigging of history will change that...

Indeed.

I really don't see how that detracts from what I said, particularly the pawn bit. Yes, the Japanese soldiers acted with a degree of ferocity and cruelty that was on average far greater than that of allied soldiers, but the soldiers of both sides did no more than "the bidding of the leaders", each in their own way, and that was - and continues to be - brought about by an appeal to patriotism that blinded them to the fact that they were chiefly defending the wealth of their nation which was owned and controlled by - what percentage of the country's population they were fighting for? Of course I am not surprised that some of the moneyed individuals fell for that trick as well.

[Coito ergo sum]

I loathe patriotism because it blocks the development of feelings of love, loyalty and solidarity in relation to where it ought to matter: fellow human beings. Isn't it about time we realise that the majority of us - wage earners, salary earners and all other ordinary people - have more in common with our counterparts in other nations than with those that wield power, the few whose main activities are to maximise wealth with shrewd share transactions, creating hedge funds, gamble on currency predictions and mass producing assault rifles for their own personal benefit?

You had me at the beginning but then you lost me again.

I agree that patriotism is problematic - even Coito's form - because it involves caring more about people who by an accident of birth are one's fellow citizens, and thus less about everyone else. We should care about everyone.

However, caring more about people just because they happen to make money in the same way one does oneself - that's just as parochial and problematic a viewpoint. We should care about everyone.

I don't disagree. We should care about everyone. But, I care more about my wife than anyone else. If it's between you and my wife, Warren, I have to be honest with you - you're out. LOL And, that's the crux of it. I care more about my wife than anyone else. I care more about my family than folks across the planet somewhere. I care more about my friends than a stranger in Romania. No offense to them - I'm sure they care more about their friends and loved ones too. And, I certainly like to think I care about the world in general and all the people in it - I desire that everyone have liberty, justice, security, safety, basic human rights, food, clothing, shelter and an equal voice in electing representatives to govern them. But, that doesn't change the fact that there is a difference - humans care about everyone, but generally we care more about some than others (for reasons which are not objectively quantifiable).

A nation is an extension of the family. A pair bond becomes a family with a child. Multiple families become a tribe. A tribe with a leader is a village. A big village is a city. A city that controls surrounding territory is a city-state. Multiple city-states make a nation-state. People naturally bond with the people that are also from the same place as them or on the same team as them. New Yorkers are New Yorkers. Detroiters are "From the D." When one is outside of one's home area and runs into someone who happens to be from your area or town, one is normally more interested in interacting with that person - "Hey! You're from Chattanooga too! Wow! Where from? What school? Isn't it great....blah blah..." That's really the impetus for a "love of country." It's "us" - we are the same (or similar) we wear the red shirts and they wear the white shirts. We hope our team wins and your team loses.

Patriotism in its most vulgar is the arbitrary notion that it's better for the Yankees to win than the Red Sox, or vice versa. In terms of countries, it's that it's better that the Germans die instead of the French.

HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER....I am a Yankee fan, but if I found out they cheated, I would oppose them. If they won something they didn't deserve, I'd call them out on it. Similarly, I was born in the US. Like it or not we have different countries. I like it here. My family is here. My friends are here. Other Americans are also from the United States, and I'm on that team. I want that team to succeed, and the reality is that almost all countries, including but not limited to the US has enemies and in the real world countries will sometimes shoot at each other. If that happens, I want the US to win. That being said, like my willingness to oppose my beloved Yankees if they were discovered to be cheating - I will oppose the US government or the US military if they aren't upholding what I think are the best principles of the US. And, I have. My opposition does not make me unpatriotic.

[Warren Dew]

Please read it again:

I still have the same reaction. People who make their money through, say, currency arbitrage or hedge funds aren't political leaders and don't appeal to patriotism to get others to act for them, yet you are still willing to put them in the "other" category that patriots put other nationalities in. Your post still just shows another form of the "us and them" mentality - the class warfare mentality - that's just as bad as patriotism.

[Warren Dew]

A nation is an extension of the family. A pair bond becomes a family with a child. Multiple families become a tribe. A tribe with a leader is a village. A big village is a city. A city that controls surrounding territory is a city-state. Multiple city-states make a nation-state. People naturally bond with the people that are also from the same place as them or on the same team as them. New Yorkers are New Yorkers. Detroiters are "From the D." When one is outside of one's home area and runs into someone who happens to be from your area or town, one is normally more interested in interacting with that person - "Hey! You're from Chattanooga too! Wow! Where from? What school? Isn't it great....blah blah..." That's really the impetus for a "love of country." It's "us" - we are the same (or similar) we wear the red shirts and they wear the white shirts. We hope our team wins and your team loses.

I understand fully why it happens - I'm certainly not denying that patriotism exists, just that it's a good thing.

There is a rational basis to prefer friends: one is familiar with how they act, and so one is more likely more easily to have mutually beneficial interactions with them than with strangers. That usually is also true with family. However, there is no rational reason, when treating all people as people, to prefer those strangers who merely happen to be under the same political jurisdiction as oneself.

[Coito ergo sum]

A nation is an extension of the family. A pair bond becomes a family with a child. Multiple families become a tribe. A tribe with a leader is a village. A big village is a city. A city that controls surrounding territory is a city-state. Multiple city-states make a nation-state. People naturally bond with the people that are also from the same place as them or on the same team as them. New Yorkers are New Yorkers. Detroiters are "From the D." When one is outside of one's home area and runs into someone who happens to be from your area or town, one is normally more interested in interacting with that person - "Hey! You're from Chattanooga too! Wow! Where from? What school? Isn't it great....blah blah..." That's really the impetus for a "love of country." It's "us" - we are the same (or similar) we wear the red shirts and they wear the white shirts. We hope our team wins and your team loses.

I understand fully why it happens - I'm certainly not denying that patriotism exists, just that it's a good thing.

There is a rational basis to prefer friends: one is familiar with how they act, and so one is more likely more easily to have mutually beneficial interactions with them than with strangers. That usually is also true with family. However, there is no rational reason, when treating all people as people, to prefer those strangers who merely happen to be under the same political jurisdiction as oneself.

Except when we view the world as a competing political jurisdictions which do not have each other's best interests at heart. If a person is in the political jurisdiction of the US, and the political jurisdiction of the Soviet Union has missiles pointed at us, then I'm rationally justified in siding with those in my political jurisdiction over those in the Soviet jurisdiction because we share a common interest - not getting blowed up by the commies.

I didn't mean to merely justify the assertion THAT patriotism exists - I was illustrating why it exists, and that it is a natural outgrowth of family, tribe, village....a city is a big village - we like folks from our city because they are from the same place we are. Same thing with countries. We don't like outsiders because outsiders often don't have the interest of the place we live at heart. It's perfectly rational. It's not perfectly BENEFICIAL for humanity as a whole, but it is perfectly rational from the standpoint of the individual. That was my point.

[Warren Dew]

Except when we view the world as a competing political jurisdictions which do not have each other's best interests at heart. If a person is in the political jurisdiction of the US, and the political jurisdiction of the Soviet Union has missiles pointed at us, then I'm rationally justified in siding with those in my political jurisdiction over those in the Soviet jurisdiction because we share a common interest - not getting blowed up by the commies.

For situation where nationalism is directly relevant, this may be true. It's especially true for political leaders, who have a duty to put the interests of the people of their jurisdictions over those of other jurisdictions; that's what their people are paying them to do.

However, for most private individuals in most situations, the nationalistic view is a misleading oversimplification. For example, advocating protectionism to "save jobs for Americans" because you don't care that it will cause third world people to be thrown out of their jobs is stupid, since it ultimately hurts the average American more than it helps. That becomes obvious when you analyze things from the more correct viewpoint of the global community, which is more often the correct viewpoint in this post cold war world.

I didn't mean to merely justify the assertion THAT patriotism exists - I was illustrating why it exists, and that it is a natural outgrowth of family, tribe, village....a city is a big village - we like folks from our city because they are from the same place we are. Same thing with countries. We don't like outsiders because outsiders often don't have the interest of the place we live at heart. It's perfectly rational.

Actually, resistance to outsiders is still often irrational.

Outsiders may be more likely to do things detrimental to all the individuals in the community, yes. On the other hand, outsiders may be less likely to do things detrimental to some individuals in the community. My neighbor has an interest in altering intracommunity boundaries in a way that benefits her at my cost; an outsider has no such interest. In some cases, this means I should trust outsiders more than I trust others in my community.

[Hermit]

Your post still just shows another form of the "us and them" mentality - the class warfare mentality - that's just as bad as patriotism.

OK, make of what I wrote what you will. I stick to my conclusion that "patriotism is the number one hindrance to humanism exactly because it focuses on the concept of nationhood rather than humanity at large", patriotism being the topic of this thread.

[JimC]

the key to my statement is that those veterans would truly not have felt anything in common with their Japanese opponents; particularly when they had seen first hand the barbarous atrocities they had committed on prisoners. No re-jigging of history will change that...

Indeed.

I really don't see how that detracts from what I said, particularly the pawn bit. Yes, the Japanese soldiers acted with a degree of ferocity and cruelty that was on average far greater than that of allied soldiers, but the soldiers of both sides did no more than "the bidding of the leaders", each in their own way, and that was - and continues to be - brought about by an appeal to patriotism that blinded them to the fact that they were chiefly defending the wealth of their nation which was owned and controlled by - what percentage of the country's population they were fighting for? Of course I am not surprised that some of the moneyed individuals fell for that trick as well.

However, in WW2, the bidding of one set of leaders was aggressive militarism and invasions. The bidding of the others (on the whole) was defensive, until a chance to hit back occurred. There was not a "both sides are as bad as each other" symmetry which perhaps could be applied to many other conflicts.

Anyway, my key point was that, as far as the soldiers of the time felt, they had nothing in common with their enemies; your "have in common" concept is post facto and somewhat theoretical...

[Hermit]

my key point was that, as far as the soldiers of the time felt, they had nothing in common with their enemies

Yeah, OK.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your post still just shows another form of the "us and them" mentality - the class warfare mentality - that's just as bad as patriotism.

OK, make of what I wrote what you will. I stick to my conclusion that "patriotism is the number one hindrance to humanism exactly because it focuses on the concept of nationhood rather than humanity at large", patriotism being the topic of this thread.

That's quite possibly true. However, the problem becomes a "you first" problem. When country X is acting according to its perceived interest in a world of competing competing countries, than country Y must do the same or it will be stomped on by country X. That's the world we live in now. I don't think the solution is for country Y's people to simply roll over and say "we are not patriotic, we don't support country Y any more than country X" and act accordingly. If they do that, then country X will say "thank you very much, and proceed to stomp." It is not likely that the people of country X will say, "Oh, gee, look at the selflessness of the people of country Y and how they have rolled over and exposed their soft, white underbelly. Let us not stomp them. Let us be friends." I see nothing in the annals of human history to support that country X will do that.

[Warren Dew]

However, in WW2, the bidding of one set of leaders was aggressive militarism and invasions. The bidding of the others (on the whole) was defensive, until a chance to hit back occurred. There was not a "both sides are as bad as each other" symmetry which perhaps could be applied to many other conflicts.

There's never a perfect symmetry, but I'd say that leaders on both sides preferred aggressive militarism and invasions. It's just that FDR was held in check for longer by his political opposition. Certainly Stalin had no problem with grabbing a slice of Poland and all of the Baltic States.

Perhaps leaders of the countries that already held empires had a more defensive mind set, but that may be attributable to their having already conquered empires to defend.

Anyway, my key point was that, as far as the soldiers of the time felt, they had nothing in common with their enemies; your "have in common" concept is post facto and somewhat theoretical...

Based on what I've read and the limited discussions I've had with WWII veterans, the U.S. soldiers on the European front did feel they had a lot in common with their counterparts on the other side. It's true that the ones in the Pacific theater often felt they had nothing in common with their enemies, but that was more a matter of racial prejudice than actual analyses of national behavior.

I think Seraph's point, though, was that the "nothing in common with their enemies" was something facilitated by leaders using patriotism as a tool towards nationalistic ends.

[Warren Dew]

That's quite possibly true. However, the problem becomes a "you first" problem. When country X is acting according to its perceived interest in a world of competing competing countries, than country Y must do the same or it will be stomped on by country X. That's the world we live in now. I don't think the solution is for country Y's people to simply roll over and say "we are not patriotic, we don't support country Y any more than country X" and act accordingly. If they do that, then country X will say "thank you very much, and proceed to stomp."

I think this analysis is incomplete as it focuses only on competition to the exclusion of cooperation. Often countries stand to benefit mutually from cooperation. Giving in to competitive impulse will often - I would say usually - result in a lose-lose situation.