patriotism

[Clinton Huxley]

You don't HAVE to be loyal to, love or be devoted to a country. But, if you are, then you are patriotic. Maybe you're not patriotic, then. That's cool. To each his or her own.

I am generally well-disposed towards the UK but I reserve love, loyalty and devotion for family, friends and, at a push, pets. And maybe my First Edition Flashman novels.

[Coito ergo sum]

I fail to see how examples of possible situations in the very distant past or possible situations in the future have ANY bearing on the OP ,Nobody said that all acts of Patriotism are wrong ,Some times your country is right And trying to be humanitarian . My problem is when immoral or at least morally questionable acts are happily done and labelled as a patriotic and are some how raised to the status of a virtuous act because, moral questions aside ,they are Patriotic .

The examples I used were used to illustrate that point Patriotism just like Religion has ,is and will be used to elevate acts of horror to the status of virtue .

Patriotism is a device used to make others seem LESS important than us and to make our abuse of them easier .

It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

During the formation period of the US history, patriotism was something attributed to those who dissented, and opposed tyranny, and stood up for human rights, because that is what the American colonies and later the US stood for. That is where the saying that the "tree of liberty must be occasionally watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Opposition to evil is true patriotism.

If you think that there are bonds somehow more important that basic human rights because we share a country then frankly you are an idiot ,or have forgotten how easy we will turn on our neighbours in a civil war .

There are familial bonds. Many people find them most important. There are the bonds of friendship. Many people find those bonds very important too. I do rank people in importance, without regard to basic human rights. My wife, my parents, my brothers all rank above you, even though there is no real objective reason why that should be the case. They're my family. I love them. I don't know you. So, if someone said that Feck is going to get it, or my wife will get it, who do you think is going to lose out on that deal, if I have the choice?

The concept of country as a reason to care for one human more than another is wrong .

Perhaps. Some people say that the concept of family as a reason to care for one human more than another is wrong too. However, most humans feel perfectly justified in caring more for their brother than someone else's brother.

The problem with your statement, however, is that we do live in a world of competing nations, some of which want to kill the people in other countries in order to get property, resources, power, or even just enforce a religious edict. In such cases, I live here, my family is here, my countrymen are here. I won't have our country be the only one that drops its guard. If we could all become one world - a brotherhood of man - then sure. But, we're not, and we have to live in the real world.

The concept of Pride because you are born in one place not another is a fucking Joke

And, that has nothing to do with patriotism. I've seen immigrants express more patriotism toward the US than natural born citizens. I've seen them cry when they received their citizenship papers, and swell with pride at having achieved it.

The fact that speculative anthropology can be used to explain WHY humans are tribal does in no way show how that is a good thing .

[/quote]

Tribalism =/= Patriotism.

[Trolldor]

true, forgoing the argument of "good or bad", patriotism is truly a stupid concept.

Again, why?

There is no nobility in pride for the circumstances of your birth.

Nor do the circumstances of one's birth have any necessary bearing on whether one is patriotic. A permanent resident, non-citizen, of a country may well be patriotic toward that country. One can choose to be patriotic to a country.

There is nothing moral - not by any standard - about honoring and serving your country irrespective of how it operates.

Nobody said there was, nor is that required for patriotism. One need not UNCONDITIONALLY approve of all the actions of one's country in order to love it.

Patriotism is unquestioned loyalty,

No, it isn't. It's love, devotion or loyalty to a country. Nothing says one can't question one's country. Many patriots opposed the US entry into World War I, or the Vietnam War, for example.

it is faith and assumption and subservience.
Any moral act done is as effective without patriotism as it is without religion, and is as equally possible.

Sure, and patriotism is not a moral choice. It's love or devotion to one's country. That may require opposing governmental action from time to time.

No, they didn't. Patriots supported the war.

See what I did there?

Just like religion, your placing your perception of what patriotism is ahead of someone else's because they're "wrong" and you're right.
In the mean time, demonstrate to me any moral action produced by patriotism that can only have come about by patriotism.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, they didn't. Patriots supported the war.

Some probably did. It's possible for people to be diametrically opposed to each other on an issue and still both be patriotic.

See what I did there?

Created a straw man?

Just like religion, your placing your perception of what patriotism is ahead of someone else's because they're "wrong" and you're right.

Not in the least. I haven't suggested that anyone is "wrong." Whether someone loves or is devoted to their country is purely a matter of opinion, and only the individual knows for sure (since we cannot yet read minds). We can only judge patriotism in another person by listening to what they say and watching what they do, and we can then draw conclusions based on that.

I never once stated that a person needed to hold a certain position on any issue or else they are unpatriotic.

In the mean time, demonstrate to me any moral action produced by patriotism that can only have come about by patriotism.

I tried for a second to think of one, but stopped trying because it's irrelevant. Patriotism has nothing to do with morality, and it makes no difference whether patriotism is used as a guide to moral behavior or not, or "produces" moral action (exclusively or otherwise).

Patriotism is just this: love, devotion or loyalty to one's country. Period. One can do nothing and be patriotic. One can act immorally and be patriotic. One can act morally and be patriotic. It makes no difference. A patriot might murder for his country, or a patriot may lay around at home watching t.v., harboring a deep and abiding love for his country, and a patriot might throw himself on a grenade for his countrymen.

Patriotism is not an act. It is a feeling or an emotion.

[sandinista]

Think of the different morals. Marriage was common, a few thousand years ago, when a girl turned 12 or had puberty. Therefore, sex with 12 and 13 year old girls and boys at the time, which today would be considered rape in almost every country in the world, was commonplace. Were those "rapes" absolutely wrong?

...again, give me a real life, present day example and I'll listen...no "in the future when there are only one man and a 13 year old girl scenarios" thats really grasping at straws. Also, when I use the term rape I mean not consenting, pretty straightforward no matter how you try to dress it up.

Well, morality always depends on the facts, and if you narrow the facts to only OUR culture, then you artificially narrow the potential responses. In effect, you're saying: tell me how X is not a moral absolute, but only in the context of a society where X is viewed as immoral. You're basically tell me I need to answer the question, but only in a way you deem acceptable.

I gave you a situation that was not far fetched. It might occur today, in a hunter-gatherer tribe in Africa or a secluded tribe deep in the jungles of South America. I fail to see why I can't use those examples. If a tribe was hit by disease or something, and had to survive, perhaps it would be justified in doing what we in comfy cozy Western Europe or the US deem unthinkable.

It's kind of like the end of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, when Ma Joad directs her daughter to breastfeed a grown man. What would be moral? To tell a young girl she must breastfeed a dying man? Or, to allow her the choice of whether to do it, because she doesn't "owe" him anything?

Again, this had ZERO to do with culture, the example you gave had to do with underage girls having sex in other cultures where that same act could be considered rape in other cultures. NOT at all what I am talking about, like I said before, rape, as in not consensual sex. period. If there is a culture that forcibly rapes young children culture or not, it is still wrong. "culture" doesn't make something moral or right. You're still grasping at straws.

[Trolldor]

No, they didn't. Patriots supported the war.

Some probably did. It's possible for people to be diametrically opposed to each other on an issue and still both be patriotic.

See what I did there?

Created a straw man?

Just like religion, your placing your perception of what patriotism is ahead of someone else's because they're "wrong" and you're right.

Not in the least. I haven't suggested that anyone is "wrong." Whether someone loves or is devoted to their country is purely a matter of opinion, and only the individual knows for sure (since we cannot yet read minds). We can only judge patriotism in another person by listening to what they say and watching what they do, and we can then draw conclusions based on that.

I never once stated that a person needed to hold a certain position on any issue or else they are unpatriotic.

In the mean time, demonstrate to me any moral action produced by patriotism that can only have come about by patriotism.

I tried for a second to think of one, but stopped trying because it's irrelevant. Patriotism has nothing to do with morality, and it makes no difference whether patriotism is used as a guide to moral behavior or not, or "produces" moral action (exclusively or otherwise).

Patriotism is just this: love, devotion or loyalty to one's country. Period. One can do nothing and be patriotic. One can act immorally and be patriotic. One can act morally and be patriotic. It makes no difference. A patriot might murder for his country, or a patriot may lay around at home watching t.v., harboring a deep and abiding love for his country, and a patriot might throw himself on a grenade for his countrymen.

Patriotism is not an act. It is a feeling or an emotion.

Actually, it's completely relevant. Patriotism is what fuels wars at a ground level. Patriotism, racism, propganda, deceit. Patriotism and religion are the two singular reasons that everybody is still looking down. Patriotism is not "love, devotion or loyalty to one's country" at all. You're doing exactly what you've claimed you weren't, which is picking only your own definition because it's "right". You know it's right because you have faith that it's right. Well done.
Secondly, patriotism is an act. Patriotism beats up migrants, turns away refugees, patriotism rapes entire countries for the benefit of a single one.

[ScholasticSpastic]

Patriotism is just this: love, devotion or loyalty to one's country. Period.

That's why I'll not ever go for it. I love individuals. I love groups of individuals, but only if I have come to love the members of the group individually. I really cannot stretch my mind around the concept of loving, feeling devotion or loyalty to a collection of people 99.999% of which I have not met and will not ever know well enough to decide whether I love them.

Seems almost as silly as loving a god.

A country is its people, whether it is a monarchy, a republic, or some other shitty thing. You cannot love people you have not met. There are no non-contemptible reasons to favor loving people you've never met in your own country over loving people you've never met in some other country.

[Coito ergo sum]

Think of the different morals. Marriage was common, a few thousand years ago, when a girl turned 12 or had puberty. Therefore, sex with 12 and 13 year old girls and boys at the time, which today would be considered rape in almost every country in the world, was commonplace. Were those "rapes" absolutely wrong?

...again, give me a real life, present day example and I'll listen...no "in the future when there are only one man and a 13 year old girl scenarios" thats really grasping at straws. Also, when I use the term rape I mean not consenting, pretty straightforward no matter how you try to dress it up.

Well, morality always depends on the facts, and if you narrow the facts to only OUR culture, then you artificially narrow the potential responses. In effect, you're saying: tell me how X is not a moral absolute, but only in the context of a society where X is viewed as immoral. You're basically tell me I need to answer the question, but only in a way you deem acceptable.

I gave you a situation that was not far fetched. It might occur today, in a hunter-gatherer tribe in Africa or a secluded tribe deep in the jungles of South America. I fail to see why I can't use those examples. If a tribe was hit by disease or something, and had to survive, perhaps it would be justified in doing what we in comfy cozy Western Europe or the US deem unthinkable.

It's kind of like the end of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, when Ma Joad directs her daughter to breastfeed a grown man. What would be moral? To tell a young girl she must breastfeed a dying man? Or, to allow her the choice of whether to do it, because she doesn't "owe" him anything?

Again, this had ZERO to do with culture, the example you gave had to do with underage girls having sex in other cultures where that same act could be considered rape in other cultures. NOT at all what I am talking about, like I said before, rape, as in not consensual sex. period. If there is a culture that forcibly rapes young children culture or not, it is still wrong. "culture" doesn't make something moral or right. You're still grasping at straws.

I'm not grasping at straws. I'm pointing out the reality that whether something is "wrong" or "right" is purely, and only, a value judgment in an individual's head. An action is not inherently right or inherently wrong. Some things, like unconsenting sex, have very little in the way of disagreement among people these days (whether the woman is over or below the age of consent. However, it was only a few generations ago where a man could not "rape" his wife, for example, even if she did not consent. The husband was morally allowed unfettered access. That's not your example, which involves children, but it is a good example of the point I'm making.

Take ancient Greek society, like the Spartans, where it was common to take imperfect newborns and toss them off a cliff or leave them out to die of exposure. You would have been thought crazy to take issue with that practice in that culture.

The fact is, morality doesn't "exist." It's not a thing - it's not an energy field - it's not a property of things. Morality is just a value judgement - an opinion - about things, words or actions that has no existence outside of the human mind. Nothing is either good or bad, but that thinking makes it so. (Hamlet).

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, it's completely relevant. Patriotism is what fuels wars at a ground level. Patriotism, racism, propganda, deceit. Patriotism and religion are the two singular reasons that everybody is still looking down. Patriotism is not "love, devotion or loyalty to one's country" at all.

Yes, it is, at least according to the prevailing English definition of the word. If you want to change the definition to something else, that's fine - but you'll have to spell it out. If it's not love, devotion or loyalty to one's country, then state the definition.

You're doing exactly what you've claimed you weren't, which is picking only your own definition because it's "right". You know it's right because you have faith that it's right. Well done.

No, that would be you. Mine is from a dictionary. Random House, Houghton Mifflin, Merriam-Webster, etc. all have the same definition.

Secondly, patriotism is an act. Patriotism beats up migrants, turns away refugees, patriotism rapes entire countries for the benefit of a single one.

Patriotism is not an act.

Someone, thinking themselves a patriot, may beat up a migrant, or turn away a refugee, or rape entire countries. However, patriots also oppose such actions. The acts themselves are only patriotic if, however, they evince a love, devotion or loyalty towards one's country. Criminal acts, like beating up migrants, don't generally fall into that category. Turning away legitimate refugees also would not fall into that category, and neither would raping countries.

People do terrible things out of a misguided sense of patriotism, but people do terrible things for a number of reasons.

[AshtonBlack]

Patriotism, IMHO, is just tribalism writ large.
In/Out group politics on a geographical scale.

[Feck]

Patriotism, IMHO, is just tribalism writ large.
In/Out group politics on a geographical scale.

[Pensioner]

When ever I read a topic about patriotism I think “The Pale Blue Dot”

[Coito ergo sum]

Patriotism ... means you love or are devoted to your country, or are loyal to it.

If you didn't have any patriotism, however, you'd not have any care for the vast majority of people in your country.

Patriotism is not a thing that exists in and of itself. It's an emotion or a sentiment, which is created in the human brain and applied to a situation.

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?

The key word there is "we." Who is "we?" As long as there are nations, the nation that an individual lives in, help support, and that keeps your family "safe" is going to take priority over nations that that same individual has little to do with. It is analogous to "family." Individuals place their families above other people they don't know as well. If someone was going to shoot a person's wife, or some Russian farmer you don't know, that person would generally choose their wife to survive. I have little doubt that the stats on that would be upwards of 99% would save their spouse over someone they don't know.

That's at the heart of it all.

Patriotism doesn't just pop up spontaneously.

Sure it does. It is the natural feeling a person has to protect those who live in his house, over those who don't; to protect those who live in his village, over those who don't; and protect those who live in his country, over those who don't.

It is a device that economic and political empire builders have learnt to use with alacrity to get their underlings to do the dirty work for them.

That's true. They take human nature and exploit it.

Herman Göring explained it like this:

• Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Very true.

At its core, patriotism is the number one hindrance to humanism exactly because it focuses on the concept of nationhood rather than humanity at large.

Well, in a sense I agree with you. I think that the fact that there are separate nations and races is a hindrance to global humanism, because as long as there are such things, then people choose sides. Even if we had a one-world government, however, shifting power balances, and the natural human tendency to identify with their own "country" and democratic politics will cause human beings to choose opposing loyalties.

It's not "patriotism" that's the problem. Global patriotism would be the same thing as humanism. If everyone was a "patriot of the world" then we'd have a humanist world. It's COMPETING patriotisms, that causes the choosing of sides. Both sides in a civil war think themselves patriots. Both are correct. Only one side wins the war.

P.S. Coito, I am not trying to single you out for criticism. I used the snippets from your posts because they seem appropriate to contextualise what I wanted to say.

No worries.

[Coito ergo sum]

When ever I read a topic about patriotism I think “The Pale Blue Dot”

That's another reason why I am such a proponent of the space program, and think that it is a huge mistake to pull back as we have done this past year. Not only would an expanded space program help the global economy, but it would bring nations together, and change the human perspective on the Earth from one of a large, divided world, to a tiny, unified speck. It might change perspectives to get us to look more out into space than to each other. Plus, if we can move natural resource mining and energy production off world, we could make the Earth a paradise in just a few centuries.

[charlou]

Patriotism doesn't just pop up spontaneously.

Sure it does. It is the natural feeling a person has to protect those who live in his house, over those who don't; to protect those who live in his village, over those who don't; and protect those who live in his country, over those who don't.

Tribalism.

Tribalism =/= Patriotism.