News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Patriotism

Started by aitm, May 25, 2014, 10:49:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jack89

Those are actually pretty liberal and well respected sources.  Stanford is a left of center ivy league school in California and their Encyclopedia of Philosophy is highly regarded.  George Orwell was a huge advocate of social justice and a democratic socialist.  He was a very inspirational author, as you may know.  Please take a look and try to be open minded.

Also, what is your alternative?  How do you think people should interact with each other on a global scale?  Where should their loyalties lie, and how should they deal with bias regarding their language, culture, religion, as well as hearth and home?  I'm genuinely curious. 

Jack89

Convince me then.  Seriously, if your going to bad-mouth someone else's views, you should at least offer an alternative.  Over time I was able to go from being a theist to an atheist, so I think I've demonstrated that I have an open mind, at least to some extent.  I gave you my view of patriotism, and even broke it down for you, and you can't even give me a rough idea of your views on, what, cosmopolitanism?

I take it from your response that you have cosmopolitan leanings, even though you won't come out and say it.  If that's the case, then promote it.  I have gone against the conventional liberal views of this forum on several occasions, knowing full well I would suffer rude outbursts for doing so.  The thing is, I put it out there regardless because I felt strongly about those views. 

Also, please quit trying to guess my motives.  It seems you've put me, and others, into some preconceived category that you've mapped out and assume I take certain positions, even if I say differently.  It's difficult to have a constructive conversation when you do that.

One more thing.  Have you considered that patriotism, as Orwell defines it, may not have to be rejected in order to promote moral cosmopolitanism? I think it would actually help to conditionally embrace it. Think about it. 

Shol'va

If I label myself as "A" and provide a solid argument as to why my views do in fact line up with the definition of "A", and someone comes along and says "no, you're not an A", then I struggle to see the difference between them and a Christians that uses Romans 1 to say "I know you know God exists". It is every bit as annoying. This thread is essentially a "discussion" over interpretation of a word.

Jack89

Your condescension prevents discussion, you already know it all.  And you didn't even answer my question.

Cheers


marymargaret

I didn't read all the posts here- so if this has already been mentioned, sorry for the repetition.

Here's a re-enactment of a speech given by General Smedley Butler- "War is a Racket"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

Here's more info:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. � Steven Weinberg

Shol'va

There are always going to be negative actions perpetrated under all sorts of labels.

Shol'va

Sure, there's always the possibility that labels can be misused.

Shol'va

I'm not playing stupid, I just thought it would be more productive to respond in a serious way to try to bring the conversation back into focus. Patriotism stirs different emotions for different people, depending on their own personal views and experiences. My point was simple, to point out what the agreed upon definition of patrotism is, and to point out it is not singularly negative in aim, application, or scope.
I have absolutely no objection with criticizing the way patriotism is taken to be understood by some people and then used as justification for all sorts of atrocities. The Nazis saw themselves as patriots. But to focus on that outcome as the sole possible outcome is to ignore the opposite. And I had pointed out that it is also out of similar feelings of patriotism, those that are opressed, killed, tortured and maimed, that they fight for their country and loved ones.

Shol'va

You're certainly welcome to bring into the discussion a different definition, but having at least gleaned into it, is more or less a variation of "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty", or simply put, according to Webster, love one feels for country.
So my question is, those people that fought against the Nazis, The Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, etc etc, to protect their country, what descriptor would be fair to assign to them?

Shol'va

It is done for survival only if complete anihilation and massacre is the goal, not merely to annex the population, territory, under foreign rule.
Taking in consideration the definition of patriotism, and that is, love for country, by what standard and criteria would you say it is justified to dismiss those that answered the call to arms as categorically being patriots, when their survival did not in fact depend on it.

Shol'va

#70
I don't only love where I live, I especially love the people, language, culture, history, etc.
While you may be talking about history from 70 years to today, I'm thinking much earlier. How about battles from 12th century where the Ottoman Empire came knocking at my ancestor's door. Patriotism was the prevalent feeling. It's evident from historical texts.
I understand your assertion that the people I mention as well as myself don't qualify as patriots. I also understand you are saying there isn't a label. What I'm asking is why and by what standard is patriotism exclusively a negative force. Where is this agreed upon?
You said loving my country has nothing to do with patriotism. Why?

By the way I wanted to clarify the patriotic feelings I'm talking about are towards my home country, Romania. I've made that clear from the very onset of this discussion.

Shol'va

You know, in retrospect, I think it might be better if I simply agree to disagree and simply leave it at that.