Patriotism - how do you see it?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Patriotism

[Donkey]

Patriotism

As in how I observe it? Or what I think it should be.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

As in how I observe it? Or what I think it should be.
How do you see it?
There's a poll attached, in case you're interested.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I'm a patriot, and I voted extremely good.
I'm half English, and I love England, and I'm patriotic.
I'm half Norwegian, and I love Norway, and I'm patriotic.
I live in Poland, and I love Poland (well, I've lived here for 7 years, and seen it mature from a backward backdrop to a modern European state). I suppose I'm also patriotic about the land in which I live.

I think patriotism is more important now than it ever was.

Patriotism makes one thing very clear - it's about the country, and religion is totally irrelevant. A true patriot will put his country very high, and certainly won't want to destroy the country by causing problem between different religious groups.

Patriotism is peace.

[Donkey]

Can you define patriotism please?

[Non Sequitur]

Patriotism makes one thing very clear - it's about the country, and religion is totally irrelevant. A true patriot will put his country very high, and certainly won't want to destroy the country by causing problem between different religious groups.

Patriotism is peace.

Under that definition and understanding of Patriotism it is bad. If Patriotism is putting your country before all other things it is idolatry.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Can you define patriotism please?

No, sorry. I can't. Your definition, and anyone else's is as good as mine.

If you want to answer this, go by your own definition. I'm not going to discuss definitions, other people can.

[The Drunk Guy]

This thread bores my fucking head off. I hate this thread.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

This thread bores my fucking head off. I hate this thread.
You are exercising your right to say you are bored by a thread. I did it myself, earlier today.

[The Drunk Guy]

You are exercising your right to say you are bored by a thread. I did it myself, earlier today.

Really? How droll.

[Donkey]

In general I see patriotism as a bad thing.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Under that definition and understanding of Patriotism it is bad. If Patriotism is putting your country before all other things it is idolatry.
Or religion?

[Michael]

Patriotism

Is a scourge of modern society, a blight on the body politic and the source of more murder, mayham and war than just about anything else - certainly over the last 100 years.

I don't know who said this, but this famous quote seems highly applicable:
"patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

Suffice it to say that ALL states/governments have very long lists of evil deeds to their names, carried out (in secret) and in the name of the citizenry (whom they must hide the info from). Some states/governments have much longer and more evil lists of dirty deeds than others, but all are guilty.

[Non Sequitur]

Or religion?

Or religion what?

[Dominick]

Extremely negative. It doesn't make any rational sense whatsoever given the arbitrariness of the subject of the idolatry. Psychologically it's a form of extrapolated narcissism.

A thousand years ago I would have been supposed to be patriotic about my village to the exclusion of the village 5 miles away. 500 years ago I would have been supposed to be patriotic about the local city and would have to deem the city 50 miles away as 'them', 'the others', 'foreigners' and often enough 'the enemy'.

Now I'm supposed to patriotic together with the inhabitants of the villages and cities that once were the enemy. Now it's the 'nation' that one has to submit to. But nations are with very few exceptions completely arbitrary constructs, in most cases literally lines drawn on a map without any regard for what that map represents.

What do people have in common after all that live in the same country : that country, that nationality and nothing else. Who has more in common : an Oxford don and a Manchester United fan or that fan and a Borussia Dortmund fan ? A Flemish neo-nazi and a Flemish anarchist or that anarchist with an anarchist in Mexico ?

Another issue with patriotism is that it's one of the necessary ingredients for genocide. To mobilize people to commit genocide the other side, the victims to be have to be dehumanized (propaganda/hate speech serves that purpose) and the own side has to be considered without blemish and that's where nationalism/patriotism comes in.
This aspect of nationalism has brought us the Holocaust, the genocides in former Yugoslavia and the oft forgotten mass slaughters in Rwanda, Burundi and Congo.

Finally, it seems to me that the less reason there is for a real feeling of communality the more the artificial feeling of nationalism is stressed and enforced, with the USA being a prime example.

[Donkey]

Extremely negative. It doesn't make any rational sense whatsoever given the arbitrariness of the subject of the idolatry. Psychologically it's a form of extrapolated narcissism.

A thousand years ago I would have been supposed to be patriotic about my village to the exclusion of the village 5 miles away. 500 years ago I would have been supposed to be patriotic about the local city and would have to deem the city 50 miles away as 'them', 'the others', 'foreigners' and often enough 'the enemy'.

Now I'm supposed to patriotic together with the inhabitants of the villages and cities that once were the enemy. Now it's the 'nation' that one has to submit to. But nations are with very few exceptions completely arbitrary constructs, in most cases literally lines drawn on a map without any regard for what that map represents.

What do people have in common after all that live in the same country : that country, that nationality and nothing else. Who has more in common : an Oxford don and a Manchester United fan or that fan and a Borussia Dortmund fan ? A Flemish neo-nazi and a Flemish anarchist or that anarchist with an anarchist in Mexico ?

Another issue with patriotism is that it's one of the necessary ingredients for genocide. To mobilize people to commit genocide the other side, the victims to be have to be dehumanized (propaganda/hate speech serves that purpose) and the own side has to be considered without blemish and that's where nationalism/patriotism comes in.
This aspect of nationalism has brought us the Holocaust, the genocides in former Yugoslavia and the oft forgotten mass slaughters in Rwanda, Burundi and Congo.

Finally, it seems to me that the less reason there is for a real feeling of communality the more the artificial feeling of nationalism is stressed and enforced, with the USA being a prime example.
:wstupid:

[drgoodtrips]

Given the amount of unpleasant people I encounter on a regular basis, close to home, I've never been able to grasp why I'm supposed to enjoy camaraderie with someone simply because we have the same citizenship status.

It's something that resonates when discussing the subject of illegal immigration. People (from Latin America of late) come here and work hard at labor type jobs in hopes of bettering their situation. If I'm discussing the subject of illegal immigration, someone will invariably say something like "don't you care that they're putting Americans out of jobs?!?" My reply is generally along the lines of, "If I'm paying someone to build my house, I want the person who gives me the most value for my money, and I don't give a shit where they were born or where they officially live."

[Michael]

...My reply is generally along the lines of, "If I'm paying someone to build my house, I want the person who gives me the most value for my money, and I don't give a shit where they were born or where they officially live."

That's the very definition of 'unpatriotic'. You are supposed to prefer the deadbeats and scorn the hard-workers. :shrug:

[Donkey]

That's the very definition of 'unpatriotic'. You are supposed to prefer the deadbeats and scorn the hard-workers. :shrug:

Naw, Patriotism is knowing that Americans are the hardest workers. Certainly harder working than Mexicans.


;)

[drgoodtrips]

That's the very definition of 'unpatriotic'. You are supposed to prefer the deadbeats and scorn the hard-workers. :shrug:

That's kind of how that line strikes me -- "hire me, not because I do good work, but because, because, because... come on, man, we're from the same place!"

[MeMyselfAndI]

Patriotism is good. Nationalism is bad.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Patriotism is good. Nationalism is bad.
It would be very interesting to hear why you think patriotism is good.

You can tell us about nationalism too of course.

But it's patriotism that I'm interested in, in this thread.
But why do you personally think we need patriotism? Why does it help us? (and I am a fan of patriotism too, but I'd like to know why you are :) )

[MeMyselfAndI]

It would be very interesting to hear why you think patriotism is good.

You can tell us about nationalism too of course.

But it's patriotism that I'm interested in, in this thread.
But why do you personally think we need patriotism? Why does it help us? (and I am a fan of patriotism too, but I'd like to know why you are :) )

Because it unites a country. One should take pride in where one is from.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Because it unites a country. One should take pride in where one is from.
I agree - I think patriotism provides a specific kind of energy. I also think it's a natural feeling, love of the land where one has developed.

[dilettante]

It seems to me that there is some value in a very mild form of patriotism, meaning perhaps "a feeling of affection/attachment toward one's home" (be that "home" defined as the house, village, region, nation or whatever).

We are less likely to stand idly by while our home goes to ruin if we feel some sense of special attachment to it or affection for it. And I find that when we think slightly better of something or someone than they deserve, we often engage in activities that improve them.
E.G. If my garden is really quite dull but I think it is at least somewhat pretty, I'm likely to care for it and accentuate it's best parts; the added attention will quite possibly make it somewhat pretty in the end.
E.G.2 If my friend I treat my neighbor as a slightly better person than he knows himself to be, it's quite possible that he will take care (at least around me) to act such as not to ruin the opinion of the one person who thinks well of him. In the process, he becomes a slightly better person.

I predict the same would be true of countries; holding them in slightly higher regard than they strictly deserve encourages us and others to make them better. Patriotism might be particularly handy in this regard, since by definition (or at least by one definition) it gives us affection for the place where we currently reside, and thus where we are most likely to have an impact. I find that trying to feel affection or compassion for "humanity" or "the world" in a general sense without having any inclination (at least for the moment) toward a particular subset of humanity or a particular spot in the world results in grand abstracts ideas but very little practical accomplishment.

But of course the key words in all these examples are "slightly," "mild," and "somewhat." If my garden is actually a rubbish heap and I think it is a work of art, I'm not likely to change it; instead I'll just end up in bitter, senseless arguments with my neighbors when they complain about it. If my friend is a known conman and compulsive liar and I decide to put him in charge of my fiances, I'll just get swindled. By the same token, if my "patriotism" leads me to ignore my country's history, deny (or worse yet, celebrate) its faults and evils, or justify its current failings and misdeeds, then it will only lead to the further ruin both of myself and my nation.

When faced with the failures of one's country, a bad form of patriotism denies them, rationalalizes them, or minimizes them so that the country is always good. Like the spouse of an alcoholic who refuses to admit they have a problem.

When faced with the same failures, a good form of patriotism accepts them as they are, perhaps even admitting that they make one's country a pretty bad one; but one feels sadness and compassion, rather than only anger, and a desire to make one's own country better in the future. Like the spouse who stages an intervention, and tries to support their partner through rehab.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Dillitante, I've rarely agreed with a post as much as I agree with that one.
Thinking about someone slightly over what they really deserve can improve them. It's a little bit like a sprinter - if a sprinter wants to sprint at his / her best, the best opponent to have in the next lane, is someone who is slightly faster.

And although I don't like the company of people who are ridiculously optimistic about life, I find the best companions to be those who are slightly optimistic about life. They add a certain oomph to everything, in my opinion.

That is why I think patriotism is a good thing.

[Donkey]

Dillitante, I've rarely agreed with a post as much as I agree with that one.
Thinking about someone slightly over what they really deserve can improve them. It's a little bit like a sprinter - if a sprinter wants to sprint at his / her best, the best opponent to have in the next lane, is someone who is slightly faster. But why should that be in any way related to nation of origin?


And although I don't like the company of people who are ridiculously optimistic about life, I find the best companions to be those who are slightly optimistic about life. They add a certain oomph to everything, in my opinion.

That is why I think patriotism is a good thing.

Patriotism means that you think better of someone from your country than someone not, even if they have equal merits.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Donkey, if that is what patriotism means, then I'm not a patriot.
But that is not my definition of being a patriot.

As to your first question, it is relevant to patriotism, since patriotism is about having a positive feeling about something, that something being one's country (in my opinion).

[Donkey]

Donkey, if that is what patriotism means, then I'm not a patriot.
But that is not my definition of being a patriot.

As to your first question, it is relevant to patriotism, since patriotism is about having a positive feeling about something, that something being one's country (in my opinion).

What is your definition of being a patriot?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

My definition of patriot is something like love of one's family and friends, only on a larger scale.

Something that isn't justified rationally, but is felt rather than thought.

It's connected to sentimentality. I believe people are often patriotic about periods in the life. Different generations may feel proud of what they achieved. Someone who remembers the 60s or 70s or 80s may speak with pride of what they achieved, in art etc.

I think patriots are often wrongly accused of stupidity, when all they are expressing is something very natural.

You don't call someone stupid for having sex without a condom. You don't say 'der' if you wear a condom you won't have children. You understand the urge to have sex. It's just a natural part of being a human being.

[Dominick]

Patriotism is good. Nationalism is bad.

nationalism n 1 patriotic feeling, principles or efforts

They're one and the same, the only difference being that the term 'patriotism' is preferred by those that are aware 'nationalism' has extremely ugly connotations. The Latin patria means 'nation' if translated to contemporary terms.

[Dominick]

It's just a natural part of being a human being.
No it's not. If it were human nature it would be universal at all times and places. But nationalism and the abhorrence of nationalism both fluctuate between say 1 and 99% of the population. When nationalism did and does reach high percentages the results are obvious. So obvious in fact that one can predict with near certainty that someone is going to pay the price whenever nationalism resuscitates; the Roma in present day Hungary e.g.

[dilettante]

I think patriots are often wrongly accused of stupidity, when all they are expressing is something very natural.

You don't call someone stupid for having sex without a condom. You don't say 'der' if you wear a condom you won't have children. You understand the urge to have sex. It's just a natural part of being a human being.

Wait, when did "natural" and "stupid" become mutually exclusive?

[Donkey]

Wait, when did "natural" and "stupid" become mutually exclusive?

Yeah.

You can argue that tribalism (patriotism...) is natural, but that doesn't make it ok or a good thing.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Wait, when did "natural" and "stupid" become mutually exclusive?
What I mean is that people sometimes think a patriot is an idiot who discriminates positively in favour of their fellow countrymen.

However, in my opinion, a patriot is someone who acknowledges that he/she loves his/her country, and feels a connection when he/she is exposed to things which he/she thinks are culturally part of his/her country.

[Michael]

What I mean is that people sometimes think a patriot is an idiot who discriminates positively in favour of their fellow countrymen.

However, in my opinion, a patriot is someone who acknowledges that he/she loves his/her country, and feels a connection when he/she is exposed to things which he/she thinks are culturally part of his/her country.

So, you mean that for me to love Canada, I have to love the heavy tar sands development in northern Alberta since that's culturally part of Canada? :ummm:

What about all those stupid subsidy sucking and uneducated fishermen (on both coasts)? They are certainly part of Canadian culture. I think they are idiots. I guess I can't be Canadian. :shrug:

[MeMyselfAndI]

They're one and the same, the only difference being that the term 'patriotism' is preferred by those that are aware 'nationalism' has extremely ugly connotations. The Latin patria means 'nation' if translated to contemporary terms.

That is not how it is defined here in Russia.

Patriots
http://parere.ru/system/files/photo/image/159/main/003.jpg
Like these youths carrying a Russian flag at a Russia Day celebration. Those who love, in our case, Russia, as their country, their Motherland. They are of whatever ethnic background, and have no prejudicial sentiments toward any other ethnicities, native or immigrant.

Patriotic events are often organized and participated by such groups as United Russia Youth Guard
http://www.molgvardia.ru/files/mg_regions/P1010777.JPG

Nationalists
http://93.123.163.99/upsend/Img/2009-11/rm/01.jpg
Like these young people, carrying the Romanov Dynastial Tricolor at a "Russian March" that also happens every year. These are mostly racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant types. The Black-Yellow-White of the Romanovs has become the official flag of the nationalists, their colors. Many of them do not recognise the White-Blue-Red anymore, so it often seems lol

Such groups take part in "Russian March" as Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI)
http://93.123.163.99/upsend/Img/2009-11/rm/12.jpg

Russian Deed (Russkoe Delo)
http://93.123.163.99/upsend/Img/2009-11/rm/37.jpg

Orthodox Christian fundamentalists and extremists
http://93.123.163.99/upsend/Img/2009-11/rm/05.jpg
including the Cross Bearers, the crazy ones who hate gays

Resistance (Soprotivlenie)
http://samlib.ru/img/s/simonenkow_w_i/march/14m.jpg

Russian Way (Russkiy Obraz)
http://samlib.ru/img/s/simonenkow_w_i/march/nashuswobodu.jpg

National Union
http://www.brainca.com/uploads/posts/2010-11/1289075948_33273-5.jpg

Their demands and proclamations speak for themselves
http://samlib.ru/img/s/simonenkow_w_i/march/tolerant.jpg
'Youth against tolerance'

http://www.kasparov.ru/images/galleries/4AF2DDEF40250.jpg
'Immigrant, go home!'
http://gdb.rferl.org/CF15DC59-3482-44DF-BFE8-E8E6CD4EFEC9_mw800_s.jpg
'Moscow is a [ethnic] Russian city'

http://saint-petersburg.ru/i2/imgweb/800/1981.jpg
(To the government) 'Change immigration policies or we will change you. Nationalists.' You can see a Airborne Troops glag there too (Blue-Green with gold parachute). Veterans attend these too... A lot of nationalists in the military these days.

The raised right hands, here you go
http://gdb.rferl.org/A0CF55C9-C618-48C3-B6CF-99D56F705EE6_mw800_mh600_s.jpg
http://marinafedoseeva.com/img/russkiimarsh041109/27.jpg
Yes, this is exactly what their grandfathers gave their lives for, in the 40s.

This year's Russian March in Saint Petersburg ended in a brawl between nationalist youth from the march and some ethnic Azerbaijanis they saw sitting in a restaurant nearby. Between 20 and 30 people fought. 10 were later taken to hospital, mostly with stab wounds, including on all eight of the Azers (3 of whom were women), and bruises on the nationalists, a concussion on one, hit in the head with a chair.
http://www.gazeta.ru/social/kseno/963904.shtml

In Novosbirsk last year was a big fight, group of 50 antifascists tried to block 200 far right activists participating in the local 'Russian March'.
http://imc-siberia.org/ru/node/1685?page=1
Video included.

[MeMyselfAndI]

What worries me is that they are growing
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h417/lindurm1976/1st%20may%20russian/133.jpg
http://image.tsn.ua/media/images/original/Nov2010/387917.jpg
In Moscow, for example.

2008 Russian March attendance: 2,000 people.
2009: 5,000
2010: 7,000
2011: 12,000

They are gaining support from veterans' groups; soccer hooligan networks; skinhead gangs (that snarling white wolf on the Resistance banner is the logo of the White Wolves gang that preyed on people who did not look Slavic in Moscow, killed dozens of immigrants, mostly in swarming attacks on board Metro trains).

But nationalism, meaning racist xenophobia, is everywhere here, of course, even among the police, for example. Here OMON deals with disorderly Chinese immigrant construction workers at island Rsskiy near Vladivostok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQw5Vbv4R0Q&feature=related
The workers fought with the construction company guards before, and OMON was called. As they kick a Chinese whom they just put on the ground, one OMON soldier is yelling "Fucking Chinese narrow-eyed monkey, whose land do you think you are on?! We'll kill you!" another says "Let me kick him some more, let me finish him." But another soldier pulls him off. Later on you see some Chinese lined up against a wall, and a OMON man picks up a stone, says "We will stone you now" and they are all yelling in fear... Funny part was, the Chinese swore in Russian quite fluently... lol I suppose they've lived in Russia for awhile before.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

MeMyselfandI, you have the right to write whatever you want on all threads. But remember, this thread is supposed to be about patriotism. If someone says that patriotism is the same as nationalism, it is very easy to explain in a few lines what the difference is. What you are doing is writing long texts about something which the thread is not about, according to your own (and my) definition.

You have the right to do it, but that is what you ARE doing.

[Donkey]

MeMyselfandI, you have the right to write whatever you want on all threads. But remember, this thread is supposed to be about patriotism. If someone says that patriotism is the same as nationalism, it is very easy to explain in a few lines what the difference is. What you are doing is writing long texts about something which the thread is not about, according to your own (and my) definition.

You have the right to do it, but that is what you ARE doing.

Yeah, the difference between patriotism and nationalism is that they are different sides of the same misguided coin. Patriotism is just nationalism with fixed borders.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Yeah, the difference between patriotism and nationalism is that they are different sides of the same misguided coin. Patriotism is just nationalism with fixed borders.

But nationalism involves racism. At least here it does.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Making fun of oneself is very popular in many countries.

Take this example from an English comedy series called Yes Minister.

FIRST CIVIL SERVANT: My dear Bernard, if we devolve too much power to local govenment, we could end up with the public making their own decisions.
SECOND CIVIL SERVANT: But... isn't that the idea of a democracy?
FIRST CIVIL SERVANT (looking shocked): This is a British democracy!

When we make fun of our own country, this is the best sign of how much we love it. We are making fun of ourselves because we love the country.

All countries do it, and I find that it's the most patriotic people who usually enjoy it the most.

Just my opinion.

By the way,
Orwell agreed with MeMyselfandI in his view on the difference between partiotism and nationalism. You can read his essay on nationalism and patriotism here.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/orwell_on_nationalism_and_patriotism/

[Dominick]

By the way,
Orwell agreed with MeMyselfandI in his view on the difference between partiotism and nationalism. You can read his essay on nationalism and patriotism here.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/orwell_on_nationalism_and_patriotism/
It's not because a renowned author states something that it becomes gospel.
Orwell's very definition of patriotism already entails the ugliness of nationalism:

By “patriotism” I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.
That sounds nice and rustic until you acknowledge the sociological reality of both migration and globalization (in the sociological meaning, *not* the economical one). When taking that into account it becomes inevitable that 'the way of life' will be 'forced on other people'. It's a closedmindness to other cultures and external influences that will inevitably lead to isolation and authoritarianism. The desire for this idyllic -and always unrealistic- conservatism always degrades into xenophobia and militarism.
Any way of life will change, that is just the nature of things. Trying to stop that natural process has led to disaster every single time.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Dominik, what in Orwell's statement makes you think that he is saying patriots can't... live in their country, be devoted and patriotic to their own particular way of life, and accept that other people IN THE SAME COUNTRY, have a completely different way of life?

[Michael]

But nationalism involves racism. At least here it does.

Nationalism seems almost entirely predicated upon racism.

[Michael]

It's not because a renowned author states something that it becomes gospel.
Orwell's very definition of patriotism already entails the ugliness of nationalism:

That sounds nice and rustic until you acknowledge the sociological reality of both migration and globalization (in the sociological meaning, *not* the economical one). When taking that into account it becomes inevitable that 'the way of life' will be 'forced on other people'. It's a closedmindness to other cultures and external influences that will inevitably lead to isolation and authoritarianism. The desire for this idyllic -and always unrealistic- conservatism always degrades into xenophobia and militarism.
Any way of life will change, that is just the nature of things. Trying to stop that natural process has led to disaster every single time.

But the policy of trying to stop that process also seems to be one of the most univeral in political popularity. Hence the repeated disasters.

[Michael]

Dominik, what in Orwell's statement makes you think that he is saying patriots can't... live in their country, be devoted and patriotic to their own particular way of life, and accept that other people IN THE SAME COUNTRY, have a completely different way of life?

Because that's unpatriotic. If one way is the best way, then all other ways are bad by definition.

[dilettante]

Because that's unpatriotic. If one way is the best way, then all other ways are bad by definition.

That seems like a false dichotomy between:
1) One way is great and all other ways are crap and should be suppressed.
and
2) All ways are equally good/bad/whatever.

[Michael]

That seems like a false dichotomy between:
1) One way is great and all other ways are crap and should be suppressed.
and
2) All ways are equally good/bad/whatever.

Saying "one way is the best" says it is number one and that all others are inferior by definition. Saying "something is great" does not produce that conclusion.

Your accusation is thus a strawman.

Indeed, that's why I've always objected to the infamous American expressions "USA is number one" or "the USA is the greatest". This directly asserts inferiority in all others. Saying that "USA is great" doesn't have that connotation.

[Dominick]

Dominik, what in Orwell's statement makes you think that he is saying patriots can't... live in their country, be devoted and patriotic to their own particular way of life, and accept that other people IN THE SAME COUNTRY, have a completely different way of life?
It's implicit. For one thing, if they want to preserve their way of life over generations they will have to force patriotic thinking upon their children, i.e. indoctrinate them. Unless you want to argue that children do not have rights outside of their parents' will, newborn children are part of the 'other' people.
Depending on what exactly one understands when talking of 'a way of life' this will be the same case too for people who move into the neighbourhood that is part of that way of life or by e.g. marriage become part of the group that is considered to be living that particular way of life.
There's an obvious problem here : what exactly is 'a way of life' ? If it's all-encompassing as nationalists often claim, then it's a fiction. In our complex cities and even in the more rural regions there are dozens of different ways of life easily discerned.
And if it's a very narrow and local idea then it becomes self-evident but also irrelevant such as when constricts the idea to the family. But this latter interpretation is not what any patriot means, is it ? What they do is extrapolate their very individual 'way of life' and claim that it should -naturally- be take over by all around them. They assume that their way of life would be the best for all. But that is a highway leading straight to authoritarianism. It's the primary fault of both Nazis and Soviets, and both led to disaster.
Neither patriotism or nationalism are compatible with freedom. Freedom can only exist when the 'other' are left to their own ways without interference (within obvious boundaries of course, such as one doesn't need to accommodate a cannibalistic sect to give a silly example). Preservation of a certain -often fictitious- way of life necessarily inhibits other ways of life, with the sole exception of the private individual life.

[Dominick]

But the policy of trying to stop that process also seems to be one of the most univeral in political popularity. Hence the repeated disasters.
And the inescapable conclusion one reaches from that fact is that homo sapiens sapiens is twice removed from its self-assigned title. Home stultus³ would be more appropriate. (i.e. dumb, dumb, dumb man)

[NickKIELCEPoland]

It's implicit. For one thing, if they want to preserve their way of life over generations they will have to force patriotic thinking upon their children, i.e. indoctrinate them. Unless you want to argue that children do not have rights outside of their parents' will, newborn children are part of the 'other' people.
Depending on what exactly one understands when talking of 'a way of life' this will be the same case too for people who move into the neighbourhood that is part of that way of life or by e.g. marriage become part of the group that is considered to be living that particular way of life.
There's an obvious problem here : what exactly is 'a way of life' ? If it's all-encompassing as nationalists often claim, then it's a fiction. In our complex cities and even in the more rural regions there are dozens of different ways of life easily discerned.
And if it's a very narrow and local idea then it becomes self-evident but also irrelevant such as when constricts the idea to the family. But this latter interpretation is not what any patriot means, is it ? What they do is extrapolate their very individual 'way of life' and claim that it should -naturally- be take over by all around them. They assume that their way of life would be the best for all. But that is a highway leading straight to authoritarianism. It's the primary fault of both Nazis and Soviets, and both led to disaster.
Neither patriotism or nationalism are compatible with freedom. Freedom can only exist when the 'other' are left to their own ways without interference (within obvious boundaries of course, such as one doesn't need to accommodate a cannibalistic sect to give a silly example). Preservation of a certain -often fictitious- way of life necessarily inhibits other ways of life, with the sole exception of the private individual life.
1. You mention the need to force one's children to be patriotic about one's culture, to preserve it over generations. Where does Orwell say he feels the need to preserve his culture over generations.

2. Orwell makes it clear that he has no wish to impose his way of life on others - in other words, Nazis and Soviets were acting non-patriotically by Orwell's definition.

3. Why can't patriotism be compatible with freedom? If what I have put in bold text is an explanation, then I don't understand that explanation. Could you explain it in a different way, please?

[dilettante]

Saying "one way is the best" says it is number one and that all others are inferior by definition. Saying "something is great" does not produce that conclusion.

Your accusation is thus a strawman.

Indeed, that's why I've always objected to the infamous American expressions "USA is number one" or "the USA is the greatest". This directly asserts inferiority in all others. Saying that "USA is great" doesn't have that connotation.

I suppose the question is, can they be ranked?

If so, then you'll necessarily end up with one (or at least a subset) that is/are the "best." In which case, my point would simply be that just because some alternative is not viewed as "the best," that doesn't ipso facto mean it's bad or should be suppressed.

If they can't be ranked, then they'll all equally good/bad/preferable/whatever and calling any one of them "great" is meaningless. In which case, ways of life that include intolerance and suppression of other cultures are no better or worse than ways of life that, to borrow from Dom, leave the other to "their own ways without interference."

[Michael]

I suppose the question is, can they be ranked?
Only objectively and no one is ever interested in that since the USA is never #1 on any objective ranking (except military spending).

The fact that the USA is never #1 in any positive objective measure of nation-states doesn't seem to dent the millions of Americans who routinely assert that the USA IS NUMBER ONE!!! USA does manage to top out as #1 in a whole bunch of negative measures (crime rates, percentage of population in jail, and a whole host of worst healthcare measures).

If so, then you'll necessarily end up with one (or at least a subset) that is/are the "best." In which case, my point would simply be that just because some alternative is not viewed as "the best," that doesn't ipso facto mean it's bad or should be suppressed.

If they can't be ranked, then they'll all equally good/bad/preferable/whatever and calling any one of them "great" is meaningless. In which case, ways of life that include intolerance and suppression of other cultures are no better or worse than ways of life that, to borrow from Dom, leave the other to "their own ways without interference."
No. Ordinary people are only ever going to rank things subjectively and that's just a proxy for nationalism/patriotism (and warmongering).

[dilettante]

Only objectively and no one is ever interested in that since the USA is never #1 on any objective ranking (except military spending).

The fact that the USA is never #1 in any positive objective measure of nation-states doesn't seem to dent the millions of Americans who routinely assert that the USA IS NUMBER ONE!!! USA does manage to top out as #1 in a whole bunch of negative measures (crime rates, percentage of population in jail, and a whole host of worst healthcare measures).

No. Ordinary people are only ever going to rank things subjectively and that's just a proxy for nationalism/patriotism (and warmongering).

Isn't that (defining some things as negative and some as positive) ranking? I don't see any way to say Nation X ranks high in positive measures and Nation Y ranks high in negative measures without necessarily implying that things in Nation X are better (i.e. more "positive") than Nation Y. :shrug:

Which is fine. I just don't think it's necessarily 'a proxy for warmongering.' I think people can say "This is better than that" without the necessity of either annihilating "that" or forcing "this" on everyone.

[Michael]

Isn't that (defining some things as negative and some as positive) ranking? I don't see any way to say Nation X ranks high in positive measures and Nation Y ranks high in negative measures without necessarily implying that things in Nation X are better (i.e. more "positive") than Nation Y. :shrug:

Which is fine. I just don't think it's necessarily 'a proxy for warmongering.' I think people can say "This is better than that" without the necessity of either annihilating "that" or forcing "this" on everyone.

Positive objective measures: like GDP/capita, longevity, happiness, educational achievement, amount of social services available, lowest crime rate, etc.

Negative objective measures: like a lack of longevity, obesity rate, diabetes rate, rate of death due to lack of healthcare, highest crime rates, etc.

These are measures that one can objectively rank nation-states. On these objective measures, the USA always scores very high on the negative ones and very low on the postive ones.

I don't think these kinds of 'value-judgements' are entirely political (except to hardcore partisans). They are certainly objective measures. And no, they don't add up to a clear definition of one nation being "the best" - not unless one nation clearly leads in every category and that never happens. The only reason I brought this up is because it shows just how clueless many Americans are when they proudly boast "USA IS NUMBER ONE". If there is an objective measure of the best state, I can honestly say the USA wouldn't make the top ten list. Not even close.

The only rational conclusion is that a majority of Americans are extremely (and mindlessly) patriotic - to the point of cognitive dissonance about the actual facts of the claim of US greatness.

[Dominick]

1. You mention the need to force one's children to be patriotic about one's culture, to preserve it over generations. Where does Orwell say he feels the need to preserve his culture over generations.
That is implicit too. What meaning would 'preserving a culture' have if it were but for one generation?


2. Orwell makes it clear that he has no wish to impose his way of life on others - in other words, Nazis and Soviets were acting non-patriotically by Orwell's definition.
In his definition, yes, but that definition falls apart when he defines patriotism as defensive and nationalism as having a 'will to power'. How is patriotism going to preserve its culture without power ? To oppose the naturally occurring changes in a culture and in the context of any hierarchical society power is a necessary ingredient. His definition of patriotism is idealistic, romantic and utopian.


3. Why can't patriotism be compatible with freedom? If what I have put in bold text is an explanation, then I don't understand that explanation. Could you explain it in a different way, please?
Because it will necessarily devolve into nationalism (see above) and nationalism always leads to oppression and worse.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Dominik, neither I nor Orwell have mentioned preserving cultures. Only you have done that.

[Dominick]

Dominik, neither I nor Orwell have mentioned preserving cultures. Only you have done that.
The OP defined the methodology of the thread:

Can you define patriotism please?

No, sorry. I can't. Your definition, and anyone else's is as good as mine.

I've used my definition.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

That is implicit too. What meaning would 'preserving a culture' have if it were but for one generation?



Yes, in your defininition, patriotism may be about preserving culture, but it was me that was being asked.