One Way to Surrender to the Neocons: Make "Patriotism" a bad word.

In another thread on DU it became painfully obvious that a number of people here disparage "patriotism," assuming that the word is synonymous with "jingoism" and "nationalism."

If this goes unanswered, if liberals forget what "patriotism" is, then we have lost, and the Repugs have won. We might as well all quit and go home, preferably home to some other country.

My definition: Patriotism is a dedication to civic duty. In America, patriotism is a dedication to the processes of democratic government and the Constitution. It is a determination to protect these processes from those (e.g., the Bush Administration) who would destroy them.

Patriotism is NOT "my country right or wrong," or the use of nationalistic icons like the flag for propaganda purposes. It is not a blind, childlike loyalty to home and country (Emma Goldman to the contrary). That's what the Repugs call "patriotism," but they lie.

This goes WAY beyond being for any particular candidate in any particular election. Nobody, including Wesley Clark, owns the word. So please don't turn this into another Wesley Clark versus the world thread. Let's just talk about what patriotism is.

I do not believe that democratic government can exist in an unpatriotic population. If people calling themselves "liberals" denounce patriotism, then what is the point of political activism at all? If you don't understand that, then you must not understand the word "patriotism" as I do.

So, what is patriotism? What does the word mean to you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quickie Quiz: Who Said This?

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility."

But you really lost me when you implied that I should go live in another country if I don't define and hew to patriotism the same way you do. I usually see that coming from someone with 14 posts.

... I mean better haul your ass outta this one, because the fascists are taking over. I'm not saying you should move away because you aren't worthy to live here.

What 14 posts?

Thanks for the clarification.

is honoring those who have gone and died before us. Honoring them by never allowing our Rule of Law, our Bill of Rights, -all that the patriots have fought for- to fade like a memory.

Patriotism is understanding that a free people can never be conquered from without. The conquest of a free people happens from within, as in suicide. It was Abraham Lincoln who said it first, and who said it best:

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." http://www.bartleby.com/66/16/36416.html

This is Abraham Lincoln telling us that terrorists and mad dictators of foreign nations CAN NEVER destroy us, can never harm us. Only we, as free people, can destroy ourselves, and we must prevent that from happening by protecting and honoring our Rule of Law.

We must, therefore, vote according to these principles. Bush's administration have COMPLETELY gutted the 4th Amendment. THerefore, patriots everywhere must Vote them out.

And we should point that out at every opportunity. Say it enough times and it starts to sink into the national consciousness.

on a recent shameful exploitation of the term.

Notice the kneejerk reversial back to jingoistic threats as noted in the first response and military associations as the ultimate measure as demonstarted in a previous thread.

This is like the poster that tosses out the anti-semitic charge while condemning Sharon and then spends the entire thread defending Sharon's policies as if one were unrelated to the other.

I think that we are too close to some events to have perspective yet. Perhaps it would be better to create a "new patriotism" as part of the process rather than define it to soon without first charting out the course.

Imposing patriotism is always a tricky business in a free society. It is when announcing a claim to it that it gets a little prickly---It is too inflamatory.

I don't think you can "impose" it, anyway. It's like having a sense of resposibility -- there's no way to surgically implant one. If somebody doesn't have one, he/she probably never will.

What I'm trying to do here is clarify what patriotism IS, and what it ISN'T. The knee-jerk assumptions that patriotism is all about flag waving and blind loyalty and jingoism were making me nuts.

To my way of thinking, a U.S. citizen who isn't interested in military parades and flag waving but who does care deeply about civil liberty, fair elections, and justice is a real patriot. People who love military parades and flag waving but don't worry too much about civil liberty, fair elections, and justice -- are not.

but it still bothers me. The term is loaded and it carries many connotations that may make many... patriots react with concern that someone is imposing their version of it.

You can't impose it because no one should have the right to fly it as their own. What some people may view as patriotism may be threatening to others. People who advocated for civil rights as a patriotic quest were challenged by those resistant to the change in their worldview- and they consider their faithfulness to an ideal as patriotism as well.

Clark is just using it for a gimmick--it is Clinton's pet project--Americorps -- but in a time when many are searching for work and the military has recruiting needs... I am not sure what to make of it.

Amusingly enough, you accuse Clark of using the word as a 'gimmick' when he's saying the same thing you are: the word needs to be unwound, because it has been twisted into something it was never meant to be. That's why Clark spends so much time talking about the value of dissent.

It's amazing to me that you spend half your posts here attacking Clark, and then you say something like this which reveals you know absolutely nothing about him -- and it isn't because there is nothing to know. It's as if you are the mirror image of what you abhor. Nah, couldn't be. You have rationally thought this out, and reached your positions regarding Clark and patriotism only after long consideration, and carefully reflecting upon the evidence. The real problem is the newbie bullyboy nazi Clark supporters, who march in lockstep to the beat of fascist drums, blah blah blah. Of course that is absolutely as ignorant and foolish a position to adopt as the one that scares you so, but it doesn't stop you from adopting it. Stones, glass houses.

"good citizenship" would have been preferable to me--it instills that committment without the kneejerk allegiance.



Attacking Clark is good for you to brush up on your chops and moderate your approach. Look as it as an opportunity. Ya didn't just think you were gonna get it all handed to you? ;-)

Patriotism in a democracy is NOT "kneejerk allegiance." Never was. That is exactly the Big Lie I am attempting to deflate here.

I hope that was for show, and that privately, at least, there's more going on.

"The knee-jerk assumptions that patriotism is all about flag waving and blind loyalty and jingoism were making me nuts."

Maybe as a product of the '60s, maybe because the Pukes have done such a GREAT job of co-opting the flag for their purposes, maybe because Nationalism scares the crap out of me, maybe because I'm an emotional person; whatever the reason, I understand the knee-jerk reaction AGAINST the word patriotism, the military, and the symbolism of the flag.

However, your definition of patriotism in the OP is something I can absolutely agree with. I can also agree with the need to "re-explain" that definition to the voting public, and do it hard and often before the '04s.

Does this sound conflicted? If so, it's because I long-ago ceded the symbolism to the right, and I need to LEARN to make it mine... this time for the right reasons.

Thanks for starting this thread...

(How did your fundraiser go? Will your blog live past the end of this month?)

That was in the 1960s, as you know; and they made "liberal" a bad word, and they made "feminism" a bad word, and now I see people who apparently identify themselves as "progressives" running away from "patriotism."

What WOULD Teddy Roosevelt, the great progressive of his day, say? (Suggestion for history nerds: Compare/contrast Clark's "New Patriotism" with TR's "New Nationalism.")


I'm I'm making a stand, dammit! I'm not runnin' no more! I am one flag-wavin', liberal feminist PATRIOT!!!!!

maybe it is best to be a citizen of the world instead.

... which is quite a trip.

Regarding what you wrote, TR said,

"Experience teaches us that the average man who protests that his international feeling swamps his national feeling, that he does not care for his country because he cares so much for mankind, in actual practice proves himself the foe of mankind; that the man who says that he does not care to be a citizen of any one country, because he is the citizen of the world, is in fact usually and exceedingly undesirable citizen of whatever corner of the world he happens at the moment to be in. ... if a man can view his own country and all others countries from the same level with tepid indifference, it is wise to distrust him, just as it is wise to distrust the man who can take the same dispassionate view of his wife and mother."

-- Theodore Roosevelt, "The Man in the Arena," 1910

what can you expect?


Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

Thomas Paine

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Was that necessary or was it typical?

... In pursuit of its “manifest destiny”, which would have been called Lebensraum (room to grow in) in 1930s Germany, 19th-century American expansionists laid claim to most of their continent. Some parts, such as Alaska and the huge swathe of land between the Rockies and the Mississippi that came with the Louisiana Purchase, were bought. Others were acquired more traditionally: California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and parts of Colorado and Wyoming all fell into America's lap at the end of the 1846-48 war that President James Polk had baited Mexico into fighting, chiefly to obtain California.

A second imperial phase came after the Spanish-American war of 1898. This “splendid little war”, in the words of the secretary of state, John Hay, delivered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. The expansionist impulse continued under Teddy Roosevelt, whose big stick (carry one, while talking softly, he advised) and amendments to the Monroe Doctrine (his corollary proclaimed the United States' right to intervene anywhere in Latin America to prevent the Europeans doing so) have helped to make him a hero in today's Washington. A man of pre-emptive action—grab Hawaii, or see it threaten America's west coast, he argued—Roosevelt is Mr Bush's favourite president, and hugely admired by Mr Rumsfeld too.


http://www.augustana.ab.ca/rdx/eng/activism/usempireAug03.htm

I was explaining what I think of you, as I'm sure you realize.

I am aware that the right wing has kidnapped TR and attempted to make him their own, which is a five-alarm hoot considering that TR worked his whole civic life to destroy the Bushes of his day.

You have swallowed their propaganda entire, I see. A pity.

that'll really win me over. lol. Anyway, any of the things I may like about Teddy and his conservation are most likely not the parts about him they like.

He was the one that, like, preserved all the, like, land and, you know, like, parks and stuff?

A lot of TR's ideas and speeches are the very foundation of modern American liberalism. TR belongs more to liberals than to the neocons. You should spend part of a day reading some of his speeches. If he were alive now, he'd be going after the Bushes with hammer and tongs, as the zennies say.

You Go, Sistah!!!:yourock:

Most liberals in the 1960's did not take away the flag, make liberal a bad word, or make feminism a bad word. They simply tried to increase civil rights. Why would you even say such a thing?

And I want to make something clear right now. A person can be a progressive/liberal and NOT be a Patriot. Nobody has a right to own the word "progressive" anymore than they have the right to own the word "patriot".

"Most liberals in the 1960's did not take away the flag, make liberal a bad word, or make feminism a bad word. They simply tried to increase civil rights. Why would you even say such a thing?"

Lawsy, child, learn to read. I never said LIBERALS did those things. It was the RIGHT WING who did those things. I am a Woodstock generation girl who remembers it well.

"And I want to make something clear right now. A person can be a progressive/liberal and NOT be a Patriot. Nobody has a right to own the word "progressive" anymore than they have the right to own the word "patriot"."

Which is my point. Glad to see you are catching up! But I am backing off the word "progressive," honorable thought it is, and callin' myself a LIBERAL these days. Yes, people, I am takin' back the L word, and I don't care who knows about it!!!

"Lawsy, child, learn to read. I never said LIBERALS did those things. It was the RIGHT WING who did those things. I am a Woodstock generation girl who remembers it well."

Okay, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Okay, why did you appear to criticize people who call themselves progressives for running away from patriotism? You seemed to be trying to say what you think is and isn't a progressive to me. Were you?

Love of country.

Being proud of where you come from.

A sense of duty.

A desire to make you country the best it can be.

A desire to make sure that your country is always on firm moral ground.


It is not unquestioning support for what ever your government does.

It is not a desire to put the interest of your country above the rest of the world.

It is not a tool for silencing dessent.

Redefine words, that is. Patriotism already has a set definition, and according to the dictionary that definition is very simple: Love of and devotion to one's country.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patriotism)

Do I "love" America? I don't even know what that means, quite frankly. I like living here. I certainly "love" freedom and opportunity, but that can be found in lots of places.

Am I "devoted" to America? I'm even more confused on that one. Again, I'm devoted to ideals - I'm devoted to and support human rights, freedom, democracy, etc. - but, again, those are not uniquely American. Plus, devotion to America may not always be the same as devotion to those principles.

To be honest I find the the very concept of patriotism simplistic, meaningless, and even kind of intellectually dishonest. I mean - on what basis is the distinction legitimate? How can it be justified rationally - it seems to be a purely emotional thing. Not only can I NOT see how it's useful or necessary in an way, I actually see only questionable motives behind having it.


Edited to add this:

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/attack16.htm

At its ugliest, patriotism means a ranking of the value of the lives of people based on boundaries. To quote Emma Goldman: “Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone livingon that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose hissuperiority upon all others.”

People have said this directly to me: Yes, the lives of U.S. citizens are more important than the lives of Afghan citizens. If innocent Afghans have to die, have to starve -- even in large numbers -- so that we can achieve our goals, well, that’s the way it is, and that’s the way itshould be. I assume no argument here is needed as to why this type of patriotism is unacceptable. We may understand why people feel it, but it is barbaric.

But what of the effort to hold onto a kinder and gentler style of patriotism by distinguishing it from this kind of crude nationalism? We must ask: What are the unstated assumptions of this other kind of patriotism we have been defending? If patriotism is about loyalty of some sort, to what are we declaring our loyalty?

If we are pledging loyalty to a nation-state, we have already touched onthe obvious problems: What if that nation-state pursues an immoral objective? Should we remain loyal to it? The same question is obvious if our loyalty is to a specific government or set of government officials. If they pursue immoral objectives or pursue moral objectives in an immoral fashion, what would it mean to be loyal to them?

Some suggest we should be loyal to the ideals of America, a set of commitments and practices connected with the concepts of freedom and democracy. That’s all well and good; freedom and democracy are good things, and I try to not only endorse those values but live them. I assume everyone in this room does as well.

But what makes those values uniquely American? Is there something about the United States or the people who live here that make us more committed to, or able to act out, the ideals of freedom and democracy -- more so than,say, Canadians or Indians or Brazilians? Are not people all over the world-- including those who live in countries that do not guarantee freedom tothe degree the United States does -- capable of understanding and actingon those ideals? Are not different systems possible for making real thoseideals in a complex world?

If freedom and democracy are not unique to us, then they are simply human ideals, endorsed to varying degrees in different places and realized to different degrees by different people acting in different places? If that’s true, then they are not distinctly American ideals. They were not invented here, and we do not have a monopoly on them. So, if one is trying to express acommitment to those ideals, why do it in the limiting fashion of talkingof patriotism?

What is America? Do you define it purely as a geographical entity? Or by it's packaging? Or as a historical/political complex?

Let's define America as a particular experiment in self-government -- government of the people, by the people, and for the people -- begun a little over two centuries ago and still in progress. And this experiment comprises its political processes (e.g., the Constitution; representative government), its traditional ideals (civil liberties; respect of the value of individuals), and a pretty grand history if you're into history.


If we define "country" that way, do you feel any warm fuzzies?

Let's define America as a particular experiment in self-government -- government of the people, by the people, and for the people -- begun a little over two centuries ago and still in progress. And this experiment comprises its political processes (e.g., the Constitution; representative government), its traditional ideals (civil liberties; respect of the value of individuals), and a pretty grand history if you're into history.

If we define "country" that way, do you feel any warm fuzzies?

No. I think the "problem" is that I still don't understand how/why I'm supposed to feel something unique as a response to this. I don't understand why this thing you call America, as you've defined it, should make ME feel any differently than the thing called France or Spain.

And, I understand supporting the home team. I understand being a Red Sox fan over a Yanks fan, or vice-versa, and I can understand "patriotism" at that level. I can see how it's useful/fun for the Olympics, World Cup, etc., BUT, I don't always root for the US. Part of it is simply that I have a thing for the underdog, and part of it is that I have a complicated background and there at least three countries in addition to the US that have claim on my allegiance, such as it is.

Maybe that's it. I grew up traveling back and forth between the US and South America. I've traveled a lot. I like the cultural mixing and "small town" feel globalization is creating. I find common ground with people on the basis of a lot of things: interests, experiences, beliefs, values....but not nationality, which by comparison seems shallow and trite. Now, if you tell me your nationality I could maybe assume something about your cultural background, but the irony is that if there's any country in the world where such an assumption is likely to be incorrect, it's the U.S.

The "home team" analogy is one of the things I'm trying to get away from. Patriotism is not the same thing as nationalism. It's not about being a brainless rah-rah, or viewing the world in terms of us versus everybody else.

Taking care of democracy in America doesn't take anything away from other countries. In fact, the more we adhere to our democratic ideals here, the less likely we are to be a pest and menace to the rest of the world. It's because I am a patriot that I'm ashamed of how the Bushies are conducting foreign policy and cheapening this country's reputation in the world, for example.

If you are a citizen of this country, one would think you would have some flickering interest in taking care of it. Does this apply?

Taking care of democracy in America doesn't take anything away from other countries.

No, it doesn't, but "taking care of democracy" is not patriotism. It is not something only Americans care about.

In fact, the more we adhere to our democratic ideals here, the less likely we are to be a pest and menace to the rest of the world.

That's very true. Again, though, I don't see how this is unique to the US or any other country.

It's because I am a patriot that I'm ashamed of how the Bushies are conducting foreign policy and cheapening this country's reputation in the world, for example.

Here's where my confusion lies: The fact that it's Bush, the fact that it's coming from the US, does not make it any better/worse than if it were coming from some other country. Would you agree with that? I mean, if Chirac were out pissing everyone off, starting wars, ignoring international opinion, etc. - would the behavior be any LESS wrong? If not, why would you feel LESS ashamed of it, or why would your feelings change at all?

If you are a citizen of this country, one would think you would have some flickering interest in taking care of it. Does this apply?

Of course, but if I were to move to France then I would have an interest in taking care of that. Does your patriotism change with each plane trip?

Besides, that's a purely selfish desire, really. I don't want to live in a shitty place where I have no freedoms or basic rights, and that's what motivates me to take an interest.

On a global scale, though, I'm motivated by my values, and I am as concerned about the rights of workers in South America and Asia as I am about the workers in the US, maybe even a bit moreso because the former tend to be worse off. Again, this isn't about country, it's about values. Your effort to connect the two assumes the values are unique to the US, and they're not.

"No, it doesn't, but "taking care of democracy" is not patriotism. It is not something only Americans care about."

If you are an American citizen and benefit from the political processes developed and maintained through our two centuries plus of history, you have a duty to take care of it and pass it on to future generations. That's the essence of patriotism.

Seems to me the opposite of patriotism is apathy -- let somebody else do it.

"That's very true. Again, though, I don't see how this is unique to the US or any other country."

It isn't, but if you live HERE and your citizenship is HERE then your first duty is HERE. This is not to say you might be inspired to leave the U.S. to fight oppression somewhere else. If that's your calling, then go for it. But we're here on a politics forum talking about the political processes of America and why "patriotism" is not a dirty word.

"On a global scale, though, I'm motivated by my values, and I am as concerned about the rights of workers in South America and Asia as I am about the workers in the US, maybe even a bit moreso because the former tend to be worse off."

If your calling is to work to better the rights of workers in South America, that's wonderful, and I wish you well with it. But consider that one of the reasons workers in the US are generally better off has to do with the fact that many, many people have struggled hard for these past couple of centuries to make it so. It didn't just happen. And there is a great struggle going on right now to prevent the U.S. from becoming another third world country. A century from now Colombians may be traveling here to improve the working conditions of our children.

"Again, this isn't about country, it's about values. Your effort to connect the two assumes the values are unique to the US, and they're not."

I'm making no such assumption. My point of view is, perhaps, more confucian than yours; that in every moment we have a sacred duty to honor and care for past and future. Such notions give me warm fuzzies, anyway.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that "patriotism" means putting one's own country ahead of all others, and that's very far away from what I'm talking about.

No, it doesn't, but "taking care of democracy" is not patriotism. It is not something only Americans care about.

If you are an American citizen and benefit from the political processes developed and maintained through our two centuries plus of history, you have a duty to take care of it and pass it on to future generations.

Fine, I can agree with that, but I consider that to be being a solid, upstanding member of your community, wherever that community may be.

That's the essence of patriotism.

No, it isn't. You seem to be trying to redefine patriotism to mean a whole bunch of things that, while quite good, have nothing at all to do with the basic definition of patriotism:

Love of and devotion to one's country.

You seem to be saying that you should love and be devoted to your country because it's good to be involved in your community, because justice and civil rights are good things, etc. I know I sound like a broken record here but the fundamental problem with this argument is that these things are not specific to any one country. Your community is not the same as your home country, and justice/civil rights are not unique to any one country.

That's very true. Again, though, I don't see how this is unique to the US or any other country.

It isn't...

If it isn't then how does it contribute to a definition of patriotism?

...but if you live HERE and your citizenship is HERE then your first duty is HERE.

And what if my citizenship is HERE but I live THERE? According to your arguments then my concern, my efforts, my activism, should focue on THERE, but that's contrary to the essential definition of patriotism! This is why your definition doesn't make any sense.

But consider that one of the reasons workers in the US are generally better off has to do with the fact that many, many people have struggled hard for these past couple of centuries to make it so. It didn't just happen.

I understand that, but I don't see how it's relevant to patriotism.

I'm making no such assumption. My point of view is, perhaps, more confucian than yours; that in every moment we have a sacred duty to honor and care for past and future. Such notions give me warm fuzzies, anyway.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that "patriotism" means putting one's own country ahead of all others, and that's very far away from what I'm talking about.

No, I'm hung up on the idea that "patriotism" means love/devotion to one's country, because that's the definition! All the things you've been talking about, while certainly nice and warmly fuzzy and the rest, are independent of nation. They seem much more focused on community - where you're at rather than where you come from. While I'm all for that, your effort to redefine patriotism is attempting to remove from it one of its essential components: the connection to your nation regardless of where you may end up down the road.

It so happens I DO love my country. I'm one of those besotted souls who weeps at the sound of "Stars and Stripes Forever." So sue me.

And "countries" are not intrinsically evil. They are human institutions, which means they are flawed and messy and liable to be corrupted. But a mature sort of love recognizes that; mature love is NOT blind, not does it demand perfection of the beloved.

"Fine, I can agree with that, but I consider that to be being a solid, upstanding member of your community, wherever that community may be."

Where are you right now, virtually speaking? You are taking part in a forum of the "Democratic Underground" web site. This web site is all about American politics, espcially national American politics, and one might assume that if you are a participant on this forum that you give a shit about American politics on a national level. If not, why are you here?

What you're saying is that one country is the same as another to you, and you feel no particular identity with or allegiance to the U.S.A. Now, this is perfectly OK with me. If that's how you feel, I respect that.

But I am telling YOU that I genuinely love my country, the United States of America, the whole messy thing. I love the varied rhythms of regional accents, and the funky local cuisines; I am fascinated with its history; I care deeply about its institutions; I hope for its future. And I am telling YOU that I will not apologize for that. And I sure as hell refuse to be lumped in with the Bushies and Repugs and neocons because I am a patriot.

Now, because I love America does not mean I think America is "better" than other countries, any more than I think my two children are superior to other people's children. (Well, maybe a little. :-) But, strangely, I wasn't terribly interested in children until I had a couple of my own, and then I became interested in children in general. There's something about opening one's heart to intimacy with one person that makes you more open to intimacy with the rest of the world.)

Plese note that I am not judging you against myself and claiming any kind of moral superiority because I declare a love of country. You and I are very different people, and we've had different lives and experiences. If you feel no particular emotional connections to America, I respect that. But I would like the same courtesy; I DO have a fierce love for America, and I will not apologize, and I will have my feelings respected.

As a patriot I feel kinship with all patriots of all countries, in the same way most mothers experience moments of sisterhood with one another. This is, IMO, a critical distinction between true patriotism and jingoism.

Back to Democratic Underground -- where we are now. As I said, this is a forum for people who are keenly interested in American national politics. Many people here are activists in American political politics. Are you saying it would be better if these activists had no love for America? Why would that be true?

For starters I don't really see the logic to it, and it seems to be mostly an emotional issue for people, which is never very good. Most importantly, though, I do think it creates a problematic us/them mindset. You can deny this if you want, but it's obvious even in this last post of yours.

And "countries" are not intrinsically evil.

Where did I say they were?

All I've said is that this emotional reaction on the basis of country alone doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe it's intrinsically evil, but I do think it results in a lot of evil and, quite frankly, not a lot of good (beyond the "rooting for the home team" amusement, which you reject anyway). I just don't see the point. I can see the point of being concerned about my community, but like I've said, that's not patriotism.

Where are you right now, virtually speaking? You are taking part in a forum of the "Democratic Underground" web site. This web site is all about American politics, espcially national American politics, and one might assume that if you are a participant on this forum that you give a shit about American politics on a national level. If not, why are you here?

Maybe I give a shit on an international level. And anyway, does giving a shit make me a patriot? What if I'm actually a Canadian citizen? What if I care because I'm an Iraqi citizen and your nation's policies affect me? What if I'm a palestinian who hangs out mostly in the I/P forums?

Having an interest in something is not the same as caring about it. It could be a selfish concern to keep an eye on the issue; it could be about simply observing, taking an interest in the world; it could be a lot of things. And, again, I don't see how this is relevant to defining patriotism.

But I am telling YOU that I genuinely love my country, the United States of America, the whole messy thing. I love the varied rhythms of regional accents, and the funky local cuisines; I am fascinated with its history; I care deeply about its institutions; I hope for its future. And I am telling YOU that I will not apologize for that. And I sure as hell refuse to be lumped in with the Bushies and Repugs and neocons because I am a patriot.

Hey, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. What I've mostly been doing is taking issue with your attempt to redefine patriotism, attempts which you have now abandoned. NOW you're embracing the "I love my country" definition, which is all patriotism is. You may not like what some do with that definition, and that's perfectly understandable, but you can't just up and say, "well I think bad means good so therefore it's all OK."

Do I get patriotism? No, not at all. Do I have personal opinions on the issue that you disagree with? Clearly.

I DO have a fierce love for America, and I will not apologize, and I will have my feelings respected.

And where have I asked you to apologize for it? To be honest I really don't have any respect for the concept of patriotism - I do think it's problematic in the context of liberal values and it's not something I can ethically support - so I can't really respect your feelings on the matter. Then again, I'll be honest and say that I don't really care enough about your feelings to feel anything but absolute indifference towards them. And really, why should you give a shit what I think, either?

Back to Democratic Underground -- where we are now. As I said, this is a forum for people who are keenly interested in American national politics.

You ARE aware that international issues are discussed here, right?

Many people here are activists in American political politics. Are you saying it would be better if these activists had no love for America? Why would that be true?

I'm saying it doesn't matter. All that matters is that they care about liberal values no matter where they are.

See - this is why I don't like patriotism. You may not believe that the US is better, but you're certainly very focused on it to the exclusion of others. What about the forums on this board that deal with international issues? What about the foreign nationals who participate on this board? Where do they fit in in this point you keep making about DU being all about American national politics?

"For starters I don't really see the logic to it, and it seems to be mostly an emotional issue for people, which is never very good."

Never? Emotions are part of being human. Romantic love, love of children, of friends and family, of country, of mankind -- it's not zero sum. The more you open your heart, the more ways you can experience love. You can love country and all of mankind at the same time.

In fact, I suspect if you can't feel all warm and gooey about the little things, you are just kidding yourself about the big stuff.

"Most importantly, though, I do think it creates a problematic us/them mindset. You can deny this if you want, but it's obvious even in this last post of yours."

I'm an old lady and my entire life I've tried to be brutally honest with myself about myself, which is not an easy thing. I fully appreciate the evils of the us/them mindset. It's something I've wrestled long and hard with, as a person and as a Zen student.

Zen Buddhism is famous for teaching "no attachments," but this doesn't mean becoming some kind of unemotional robot. It means that one should relate to others in a way that is not possessive. So while I am besotted with love for my children, I am capable of appreciating them as individual people who are not "mine" and, now that they are grown, let them go.

Ultimately we're all just little ripples in time, but that doesn't mean I'll never buy shoes again.

I suspect -- and I could be very wrong, as I don't know you -- that you have a fear of intimacy that has got you bottled up from yourself and your own emotions. This is a common thing and could explain why emotions frighten you. I would have written a lot of the same stuff you are writing when I was younger.

And "countries" are not intrinsically evil.

"Where did I say they were?"

You seem to want to run away from the concept of country. What's wrong with country? If I can fall in love with a man, or a cat, or children, why can't I be in love with a country?

"All I've said is that this emotional reaction on the basis of country alone doesn't make sense to me."

And I don't like olives. I used to not like liver, but lately it's starting to taste better. Which is another way of saying that we're all different. Also, just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean that someone else's experiences are not valid.

"I don't believe it's intrinsically evil, but I do think it results in a lot of evil and, quite frankly, not a lot of good (beyond the "rooting for the home team" amusement, which you reject anyway)."

If it weren't for patriotism -- the real thing -- the U.S. would have become some kind of extremist facist/theocratic mess a long time ago. Patriots in many lands have accomplished awesome things. You are stuck in the "jingoism/natonalism" mode, it seems. You should learn some history.

"I just don't see the point. I can see the point of being concerned about my community, but like I've said, that's not patriotism."

And like I've said, if you aren't a patriot, that's OK with me. If you aren't, you aren't.

This particular discussion is in the context of American political dialogue, and how the Right Wing is controlling that dialogue by controlling language. In my lifetime I've seen people shrink away from admitting they were liberals because the "L" word became a pejorative. And I've met young women who fully believe in gender equality but who don't admit to being feminists because they think that means they don't shave their armpits. Whatever. Now I've seen that the Right Wing has taken patriotism away from us, too, and dammit, I'm takin' it back!

But if this isn't your cause, that's OK with me. We're all individuals.

"What I've mostly been doing is taking issue with your attempt to redefine patriotism, attempts which you have now abandoned. NOW you're embracing the "I love my country" definition, which is all patriotism is."

Sigh. I opened this dialogue because I wanted to discuss the issue with others, and in so doing enhance my own understanding. Patriotism is a many-faceted thing. It IS love of country, but what does that mean? What is "love"? What is "country"? Don't accept surface definitions.

I do not take back anything I've said on this forum today.

"You may not like what some do with that definition, and that's perfectly understandable, but you can't just up and say, "well I think bad means good so therefore it's all OK." "

What I've said is that patriotism is not jingoism, and it's not nationalism, and that words mean things.

"To be honest I really don't have any respect for the concept of patriotism - I do think it's problematic in the context of liberal values and it's not something I can ethically support - so I can't really respect your feelings on the matter. Then again, I'll be honest and say that I don't really care enough about your feelings to feel anything but absolute indifference towards them. And really, why should you give a shit what I think, either?"

Why should I, indeed? Frankly, I find it useful to butt heads with people, so here I am.

"You ARE aware that international issues are discussed here, right?"

That's not what this thread is about, though, is it?

"I'm saying it doesn't matter. All that matters is that they care about liberal values no matter where they are."

There's some truth in that, but it so happens I'm in the U.S. Take care of what's in front of you.

"See - this is why I don't like patriotism. You may not believe that the US is better, but you're certainly very focused on it to the exclusion of others."

And mothers are very focused on their own children, which is why we've survived as a species. There's nothing wrong with that.

By taking care of my country in a liberal sense I benefit all countries. If I abandon my country to the neocons I am leaving those other countries to the wolves, so to speak, because an America given over to the neocons would be a terrible thing for the rest of the world.

I may have said this already -- I lose track of what I've said some times. But this goes back to intimacy. It's said that Don Giovanni loved many women because he couldn't love ONE woman. I've met people who were all about saving the world and who neglected their own children and elderly parents and sick spouses, and often these people are using their "causes" as a way to avoid intimacy. Saving the world is more gratifying than wiping a butt, but butts have to be wiped.

"What about the forums on this board that deal with international issues? What about the foreign nationals who participate on this board? Where do they fit in in this point you keep making about DU being all about American national politics?"

We're discussing American national politics on this thread. If you want to talk about something else, start your own thread.

Carries a different implication than "I hate tomatoes," don't it?

But first,
Never? Emotions are part of being human.

Yes, they are, and they can be wonderful things. However, I've found that in discussing issues that carry a heavy if not primarily emotional meaning for people, all logic flies out the window and it's impossible to discuss things rationally. I am not saying that's the case here, but the nature of the subject does make it vulnerable to that sort of thing.

In fact, I'll take this opportunity to say that as clear as it is to me that you are quite emotionally involved in this issue I really appreciate the way you're able to not take things personally and still think clearly. It's a rare and admirable trait.

In fact, I suspect if you can't feel all warm and gooey about the little things, you are just kidding yourself about the big stuff.

And I would agree, but the fact that someone doesn't feel warm and gooey about the same little things you feel warm and gooey about doesn't really mean anything.

I'm an old lady and my entire life I've tried to be brutally honest with myself about myself, which is not an easy thing.

And I'm a younger lady who's tried to be the same way.

Ultimately we're all just little ripples in time, but that doesn't mean I'll never buy shoes again.

Well that's good...so long as they're practical shoes.

I suspect -- and I could be very wrong, as I don't know you -- that you have a fear of intimacy that has got you bottled up from yourself and your own emotions. This is a common thing and could explain why emotions frighten you. I would have written a lot of the same stuff you are writing when I was younger.

I can appreciate why you would think that, but it's not true. I have often been told that I have a matter of fact heartlessness to me, but those who know me would laugh at that. Love of family, of friends, and of romantic partners are connections I value greatly. Love of country is not, probably because my personal relationships have crossed so many borders. That's all you're seeing here.

In fact, I often think that my strong left-brainyness makes me a stronger person emotionally. I am not afraid to show vulnerability, fear, intimacy, or any of those things, because it doesn't make sense to fear those things. Like you said, you end up closing yourself off from the world and causing more harm than good. It's just not rational.

You seem to want to run away from the concept of country. What's wrong with country? If I can fall in love with a man, or a cat, or children, why can't I be in love with a country?

You can be in love with a country, but the problem I have with patriotism is that it's love of your country.

I love India. I have a great admiration and respect for the values they've displayed in the context of nuclear disarmament. However, I've never been there, never held citizenship there, etc. Would you call my love of India patriotism? I'm not sure what you'd call it but it doesn't strike me as a passion that fits the definition of patriotism.

I don't mind the concept of country. Like I said, it has its place in other situations. In a discussion about patriotism, though, no, I don't like it. It's group think on the basis of superficial qualities.

All I've said is that this emotional reaction on the basis of country alone doesn't make sense to me.

And I don't like olives. I used to not like liver, but lately it's starting to taste better. Which is another way of saying that we're all different. Also, just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean that someone else's experiences are not valid.

And I never said that.

I'll point out, though, in terms of the exchange in our subject lines: so you're liking liver 'cause it tastes better. You like/dislike foods because of the way they taste to you, but good taste is common to many different foods, correct?

So...why do you like America? Are the qualities that make the US good not also found in other countries? Is it those qualities you like or the US that you like?

If it weren't for patriotism -- the real thing -- the U.S. would have become some kind of extremist facist/theocratic mess a long time ago. Patriots in many lands have accomplished awesome things. You are stuck in the "jingoism/natonalism" mode, it seems. You should learn some history.

Probably. I would be curious to hear about reformers in any country that were motivated by love of country itself rather than just a strong sense of justice and a belief in human rights. I don't think feminists were motivated by love of America, for instance, they were motivated by a love of equal rights and a desire to improve the lives of women (and not just American women).

This particular discussion is in the context of American political dialogue, and how the Right Wing is controlling that dialogue by controlling language. In my lifetime I've seen people shrink away from admitting they were liberals because the "L" word became a pejorative.

I can understand the practical need to develop a concept of patriotism that counters the right-wing version. I understand the political aspect of this, but that's not what I've been talking about. I saw this more as an opportunity to discuss the merits of patriotism itself. If all you're interested in is a politically useful tool then I'll concede that internal consistency is not really required, and that's probably why I'll never be elected to public office.

And I've met young women who fully believe in gender equality but who don't admit to being feminists because they think that means they don't shave their armpits. Whatever.

Yes, well, you'll get no argument from me on that one.

Sigh. I opened this dialogue because I wanted to discuss the issue with others, and in so doing enhance my own understanding. Patriotism is a many-faceted thing. It IS love of country, but what does that mean? What is "love"? What is "country"? Don't accept surface definitions.

That's what I've been trying to get at! What is country? What is it you actually love? My position is that what you're seeing as country really has nothing at all to do with country but simply human relations and issues that transcend national borders. What you seem to love is NOT unique to the US, so it can't be the US itself that you actually love, and so therefore what you're describing is NOT patriotism.

This is what I've been talking about, by the way. I'm not that concerned with the political dimension you mention elsewhere.

What I've said is that patriotism is not jingoism, and it's not nationalism, and that words mean things.

Again, I understand what patriotism is NOT in your eyes, but I have yet to hear a definition that is consistent with at least the idea of loving/valuing country. Like you said, words mean things, and you can't take the love of country part out of patriotism.

Why should I, indeed? Frankly, I find it useful to butt heads with people, so here I am.

I find it useful as well, just don't expect people to respect your opinions when they have fundamental disagreements with the values those opinions are based on. Hey, it's nothing personal. ;)

You ARE aware that international issues are discussed here, right?

That's not what this thread is about, though, is it?

No, but the point you were originally making was that:
This web site is all about American politics, espcially national American politics, and one might assume that if you are a participant on this forum that you give a shit about American politics on a national level. If not, why are you here?

The assumption seems to be that taking an interest in American politics = love of America/patriotism. My point was that that's a huge leap to make. And yes, that IS what this thread is about.

There's some truth in that, but it so happens I'm in the U.S. Take care of what's in front of you.

Right. Again, though, I don't see what that has to do with patriotism. "It so happens..." Your location is a coincidence. It's not fundamental to the values you're expressing here.

And mothers are very focused on their own children, which is why we've survived as a species. There's nothing wrong with that.

This isn't the same thing, though. There's a logic to focusing on your own children. Survival, making sure your genese survive, etc. I don't see that same logic in focusing on USers over people from other countries. I live on the east coast, and I have as much of a personal investment in the people of Oregon as I do in the people of China. My activism may focus on the people in the DC metro area, but again, that's not patriotism.

By taking care of my country in a liberal sense I benefit all countries. If I abandon my country to the neocons I am leaving those other countries to the wolves, so to speak, because an America given over to the neocons would be a terrible thing for the rest of the world.

I don't see what you're describing here as patriotism. I see it as being an active part of your community and the world it lives in, and it's something that people in communities all over the world feel. Again, I feel like you're trying to take the "love of country" part out of patriotism, and I just don't think that's possible. If you do that you're no longer talking about patriotism.

What about the forums on this board that deal with international issues? What about the foreign nationals who participate on this board? Where do they fit in in this point you keep making about DU being all about American national politics?

We're discussing American national politics on this thread. If you want to talk about something else, start your own thread.

We're not discussing national politics, though, we're discussing patriotism. Again, I understand the political component of that, and if that was your point in these comments about DU then I see your point, but your initial comments seemed to be aimed more at a connection between concern for issues and love of the country those issues take place in, so now I'm confused about what point you were trying to make in the first place.


Edited to add, just in case, that I do not hate Pakistan. I was just making a point.

"At its ugliest, patriotism means a ranking of the value of the lives of people based on boundaries. To quote Emma Goldman: “Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone livingon that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others.” "

Compare:

"I believe that a man must be a good patriot before he can be, and as the only possible way of being, a good citizen of the world. ... So far from patriotism being inconsistent with a proper regard for the rights of other nations, I hold that the true patriot, who is as jealous of the national honor as a gentleman of his own honor, will be careful to see that the nations neither inflicts nor suffers wrong ... I do not for one moment admit that a nation should treat other nations in a different spirit from that in which an honorable man would treat other men."

-- Theodore Roosevelt, "The Man in the Arena," 1910

"I hold that the true patriot, who is as jealous of the national honor as a gentleman of his own honor, will be careful to see that the nations neither inflicts nor suffers wrong...I do not for one moment admit that a nation should treat other nations in a different spirit from that in which an honorable man would treat other men."

So if "your nation" inflicts or suffers wrong, is it somehow worse/better than if another nation does? I'll assume the answer to that is no....so I'm back to why this distinction of nations is necessary at all.

Say US soliders kill a bunch of nuns in Colombia. That would clearly be a bad thing, a violation of the national honor. Now, say Colombian soldiers kill a bunch of nuns in Colombia. Is it not as bad somehow because it hasn't violated the US' national honor? Would you not be as outraged?

"So if "your nation" inflicts or suffers wrong, is it somehow worse/better than if another nation does? I'll assume the answer to that is no....so I'm back to why this distinction of nations is necessary at all."

OK, so let's scrape all of the governments of the world next week and just have one-world government. No problem.

I'm actually not opposed to one-world government in principle, but as a practical matter I don't see it happening in my lifetime. We're stuck with a bunch of nations, and so we have to make the best of it.

In the distant past I spent some time studying Buddhism in a Zen monastery, and one of the things the old roshi emphasized was that we should take care of what's in front of us.

This is not to say that, in an absolute sense, we are not all equally responsible for all the evil in the world. Rather, the teaching was to cultivate a habit of mind to be aware of the wrongs done in front of us, in our own homes, in our own families, in our own communities, and especially by our own hands, and to take care of those things first before going off on grand crusades to save the world.

"Say US soliders kill a bunch of nuns in Colombia. That would clearly be a bad thing, a violation of the national honor. Now, say Colombian soldiers kill a bunch of nuns in Colombia. Is it not as bad somehow because it hasn't violated the US' national honor? Would you not be as outraged?"

Of course I would be just as outraged. That's not the point. What TR is expressing is a variation on the golden rule -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Our nation should treat other nations as we would have other nations treat us.

This is a departure from how the jingoist defines patriotism -- my country rules, and yours drools; or, only my country matters, and I don't care what happens to yours. That's exactly the attitude TR and I are trying to get away from.

OK, so let's scrape all of the governments of the world next week and just have one-world government. No problem.

Eliminating the distinction in the arena of honor, right/wrong, etc., does not mean you need to eliminate the distinction all together. Governments are still useful in other ways.

This is not to say that, in an absolute sense, we are not all equally responsible for all the evil in the world. Rather, the teaching was to cultivate a habit of mind to be aware of the wrongs done in front of us, in our own homes, in our own families, in our own communities, and especially by our own hands, and to take care of those things first before going off on grand crusades to save the world.

That makes sense, and I agree with it, but notice that NONE of that has to do with what country you were born/grew up in. If you grew up in Spain, lived your 20s in Zaire, your 30s in Russia, your 40s in the US, etc. - what country would you say you're patriotic to?

Even if you were to spend your whole life in one spot I would not accept the above as a definition of patriotism. All you've done is describe what it means to be a good person, contributing to your society. Again, I see nothing nation-specific here.

Of course I would be just as outraged. That's not the point. What TR is expressing is a variation on the golden rule -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Our nation should treat other nations as we would have other nations treat us.

That's fine, and once again I agree, but I don't see how it's relevant to the a definition of patriotism. This is about how nations - ALL nations - should behave, not about how their individual citizens should feel about the nation itself.

This is a departure from how the jingoist defines patriotism -- my country rules, and yours drools; or, only my country matters, and I don't care what happens to yours. That's exactly the attitude TR and I are trying to get away from.

So you're getting away from it - that's good - but I still don't see where it is you're going. I understand what it is you think patriotism is NOT, but you have yet to put forward a definition of what patriotism IS that doesn't involve the same sort of semi-offensive assumptions.

I'm gettng tired (I AM old, you know) and message #33is pretty good.

"If you grew up in Spain, lived your 20s in Zaire, your 30s in Russia, your 40s in the US, etc. - what country would you say you're patriotic to?"

You'd have to decide that for yourself. Which of those countries touches you most deeply? With which do you feel most intimate, most connected? Which one NEEDS you the most? This is a highly individual matter.

I still don't see it. If it's based on history, then what of the peole who just became citizens? What of the history in the nations they came from?

You'd have to decide that for yourself. Which of those countries touches you most deeply? With which do you feel most intimate, most connected? Which one NEEDS you the most? This is a highly individual matter.

What if they all touch me the same? What if I'm equally connected to all? What's the standard for these distinctions? If it's subjective, then how can a concept that connects people on the basis of nationality actually describe a common experience?

And, the most important question at all: how is that connectin based on the country rather than my experiences with the PEOPLE in it? If the boundaries were drawn such that I actually grew up in Portugal rather than Spain, would it change the experience or my feelings about it?

"I still don't see it. If it's based on history, then what of the peole who just became citizens? What of the history in the nations they came from?"

It isn't JUST based on history, but let's go on ... Why does it have to be either/or? Of course people will have emotional attachments to their countries of origin. However, I would think that people who come here and make a decision to stay and become citizens must feel some connections to the new country, too.

You'd have to decide that for yourself. Which of those countries touches you most deeply? With which do you feel most intimate, most connected? Which one NEEDS you the most? This is a highly individual matter.

"What if they all touch me the same? What if I'm equally connected to all? What's the standard for these distinctions? If it's subjective, then how can a concept that connects people on the basis of nationality actually describe a common experience?"

Ultimately this is something you have to work out for yourself. There are no "shoulds," you know. And, all material things are relative, and all human perceptions are subjective, and that's reality. People who think of themselves and their perceptions as objective are, nearly always, deluded. There are only a few great beings in a century who get anywhere close to pure objectivity.

"And, the most important question at all: how is that connectin based on the country rather than my experiences with the PEOPLE in it?"

It isn't, of course. The people and the country are all One Big Thing. You can't separate them.

"If the boundaries were drawn such that I actually grew up in Portugal rather than Spain, would it change the experience or my feelings about it?"

With which are you most intimate? And, of course, your experiences of life impact your perceptions and feelings. There's no getting around that. You aren't a machine.

However, I would think that people who come here and make a decision to stay and become citizens must feel some connections to the new country, too.

Ok...and WHAT are those connections based on? My argument is that it is those elements that transcend national boundaries. You're not connected to the actual country but things/experiences/people within that country that you could very well find in a number of other countries.

It isn't, of course. The people and the country are all One Big Thing. You can't separate them.

Of course you can. I think you're confusing country with culture.

And, of course, your experiences of life impact your perceptions and feelings. There's no getting around that. You aren't a machine.

That's my point. It's the experience, not the piece of land on which it took place, that matters.

However, I would think that people who come here and make a decision to stay and become citizens must feel some connections to the new country, too.

"Ok...and WHAT are those connections based on?"

What are ANY human connections based on? Humans are messy and complicated, and half of the time we don't understand ourselves why we do things. But that doesn't mean that emotions should be ignored.

That's a mistake people often make; we've got this idea that we all have to be "logical" and ignore our emotions, but that's wrong. You should not allow your emotions to jerk you around, but never ignore what they're trying to tell you. Never stop listening to your heart, or your guts either.

"My argument is that it is those elements that transcend national boundaries. You're not connected to the actual country but things/experiences/people within that country that you could very well find in a number of other countries."

Of course you can. Absolutely right. However, you are unlikely to live everywhere at once. Most of us only displace one particlar spot on the time/space continuum at once, relatively speaking.

The people and the country are all One Big Thing. You can't separate them.

"Of course you can. I think you're confusing country with culture."

No, culture is part of "country." People and culture and history and geography and politics and the whole thing make up a "country." It's not just geography.

And, of course, your experiences of life impact your perceptions and feelings. There's no getting around that. You aren't a machine.

"That's my point. It's the experience, not the piece of land on which it took place, that matters."

Experience doesn't occur in a vaccuum. "Country" is part of the larger context of how you experience your life.

What are ANY human connections based on?

Yes, that's my question to you.

Humans are messy and complicated, and half of the time we don't understand ourselves why we do things. But that doesn't mean that emotions should be ignored.

I'm not saying they should be ignored, I'm saying they should be understood.

That's a mistake people often make; we've got this idea that we all have to be "logical" and ignore our emotions, but that's wrong. You should not allow your emotions to jerk you around, but never ignore what they're trying to tell you. Never stop listening to your heart, or your guts either.

Right, and being logical is NOT the same as ignoring what your emotions are trying to tell you. Quite the contrary - being logical involves trying to make sense of your emotions, why you feel the way you do, why certain people/things elicit the responses they do, etc. Only then can you even begin to understand yourself and the world you live in.

Of course you can. Absolutely right. However, you are unlikely to live everywhere at once. Most of us only displace one particlar spot on the time/space continuum at once, relatively speaking.

Right...and this has what to do with patriotism?

Experience doesn't occur in a vaccuum. "Country" is part of the larger context of how you experience your life.

I don't see that. I can see how a certain political system contributes to your experience, how different cultural values could contribute to your experience, but none of these are ever unique to any one country. I guess what I'm getting at is that the "country" label is like uncessary middle management. It's a superficial layer that needs to be removed so you can get at the more fundamental qualities that are actually shaping your experiences.

Besides, look what happens when you flip your reasoning: Say you have a BAD experience in Canada (no offense, Canadians, just an example). Would it then make sense to hate Canada?

I'm hoping you'll agree the answer is no. It's not Canada that was the problem. Similarly, I don't see how Canada - or any country itself - could be the advantage.

Edited to add something that I thought might help clear up my position here:

So you love America.

Let's say someone pops up on the board and says she hates America. We've all seen the reports that qualify this type of feeling. People don't hate America, they don't hate Americans. Instead, what they hate is American foreign policy, or American policies on the environment, or an American entertainment industry that sells so much violence, or an American fashion industry that sexualizes young children, etc.

You have to deconstruct your love of America in the same way.

AND, the things people love/hate are never unique to America. Other countries have shitty foreign policies just as other countries greatly value civil rights. It's not about countries at all.

So much for my earlier comments about you remaining reasonable and not taking things personally.

Besides, look what happens when you flip your reasoning: Say you have a BAD experience in Canada (no offense, Canadians, just an example). Would it then make sense to hate Canada?

How shallow you are. This line of questioning is unworthy of anyone over the age of 12.

Pretend I'm not yet 12, then. Explain to me why this line of questioning is so absurd you can't even be bothered to answer.

Well, so happens I hate American foreign policy, and American environmental policy, etc. etc. I am sickened and disgusted with all of these things America is doing and wish to change them. That doesn't mean I don't love America.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If loving civil liberties and justice is the same as loving America, then how can hating bad environmental policy and unjust war not be the same as hating America?

You are very shallow, dear, and I shan't be wasting any more time on you. Write back when you've learned something.

So does insulting me make you feel better about the fact that your argument doesn't make sense? It doesn't change that reality, of course, but hey, get your coping mechanisms where you can, I guess.

Do you feel any sense of belonging that is not so broad based? No offense intended, you just sound so abstract in thought, that it must be difficult for you. I would hope these views tend to be more localized on specific issues; it would be hard to maintain any friendships with no sense of loyalty I guess. (except to humanity as a whole I mean)

I see patriotism as the former, obviously.

Do you feel any sense of belonging that is not so broad based? No offense intended, you just sound so abstract in thought, that it must be difficult for you.

It isn't, actually, but I think it's because my relationships are based on substance rather than window dressing. Loyalty on the basis of country is what strikes me as incredibly broad based and abstract. How am I supposed to feel something for someone I don't know on the opposite side of the country, all because because she's in the same country? What if she moves a few miles north into Canada - all of a sudden the loyalty disappears? That doesn't make sense to me. It seems like a flimsy basis for any sort of emotional attachment.

But make her someone I went to school with, someone I traveled with, someone I've worked with, someone I've developed a relationship with somehow...NOW you're talking real connections. NOW I see substance, a common ground where feelings of loyalty, support, love, etc. can develop. I don't see how where she's from is even relevant. Who cares?

Again, if I shouldn't dislike people because of where they're from, why should I like them because of it? Can someone answer that question?

I know what you mean. Frankly, IMO people who say they love all mankind equally are saying they never loved at all.

This exchange reminded me of the song from "Hair":

How can people be so heartless
How can people be so cruel
Easy to be hard
Easy to be cold

How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be proud
Easy to say no

And especially people
Who care about strangers
Who care about evil
And social injustice
Do you only
Care about the bleeding crowd?
How about a needing friend?
I need a friend

etc.

And the moral is, start where you are.

How old are you again?

I can't figure out if you guys really don't see the point, like maybe the concept is too complex, or if you see it but don't want to accept it because it threatens your emotional investment in the idea of patriotism.

For the record, simply feeling everything with no understanding of why or how doesn't make you emotionally mature and healthy. It makes you childish, a trait reflected in your inability to engage me and you're collapse into namecalling.

Do you really think you're making an ass out of anyone but yourself here?

said Samuel Johson, Historian and author of the first English Dictionary.

This, in my view, says it all.

Of course, every literate English-speaking person has seen Johnson's definition before, and thank you for bringing it up, but if you were to apply some thought to this you might realize that Johnson was attacking jingoism, not patriotism.

between patriotism and pseudo-patriotism. the latter is what the ditto head neocons are and that distinction needs to be made whenever possible.

:kick:

If the messages were pure denotation, there would be no buzz words; however, the right-wing has been playing this game for some time. A liberal is someone who considers many options and points of view, while a conservative advocates for the status quo. The right has framed and thus, redefined those words with connotations. The same goes for “patriotism.” In the junta’s world, patriotism means giving up your rights, flying a flag, and blindly voting repug against all personal considerations.

I have recently been reading about the ways of despots, and the author devotes one chapter on the claiming of the language in order to limit the message. Once the language becomes limited by connotation, the ability of the opposition to deliver a message is essentially shut down.

Language is a shifting medium, and as Laurie Anderson claims, it is a virus. So, do you want to be able to discuss your Constitutional rights, the rule of law, separation of church and state, and any other the many liberal ideals? Then it is time to think and redefine the terms of the argument, because time is not on our side.

You say it gooder'n me, though. :toast:

Patriotism
Liberal
Union
"The Democratic Party"
Truth

It is just another religion.... and i thought we stood for freedom of religion.

I love human beings and the people living in many nations... love knows no borders and no governments. That is my patriotism, to ignore borders and religious movements... and to be human "glue" to bring together those many souls who cannot see outside their narrow little religion.

Reject patriotism and celebrate this tremendous gift of life.

The problem as i see it, is that people create deep ruts in their minds where there is "patriotism" and "not patriotism".. all of it based on thinking and judgement... and none of it humble and grateful for all the good fortune we have.. not because of some stupid government or any person or idea... just that silent joy without being forced to be one way or another.. without labels.

I don't buy that patriotism is at all relevant. I am an honourable person as are you... and in "the enlightenment" from which the USA was formed and that constitution written not too far north of your home there bronxville... that enlightenment from which emerson and thoreau speak is not bound by some silly rules of citizenship.

I am a lover of life, not a patriot.

I wrote this fifty some odd page essay entitled, With Liberty and Justice for All: True Patriotism and the Responsibility of Self-Examination on November 1st, 2001. I wrote it after thinking about the tragedy of September 11, and watching what was happening to my country since that time.

It anyone is interested in the full essay, send me a private message.

I would like to paste the quote I gave at the beginning of my eassy - a quote by Howard Zinn: "Patriotism could mean not a blind obedience to a nation’s leaders, but a commitment to help one’s neighbors and to help anyone, regardless of race or nationality, achieve a decent life."

Patriotism and Pseudo-Patriotism

The compulsion toward “Patriotism” following recent events is intense. But it is not clear if we as American citizens have recently (or ever) really stopped to consider what true Patriotism is. Patriotism is often described as little more than unwavering loyalty to one’s country. But what does that loyalty mean? Does it mean never disagreeing with the policies of government or the laws of the land? Were the Abolitionists not Patriots? What about Civil Rights leaders in the 1960’s? These people spoke and acted contrary to the established laws of the land, yet we should celebrate them as heroes. Patriotism must therefore be something more than unquestioning devotion.

Webster’s Dictionary defines Patriotism as, “one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.” I find this definition to be insufficient. By this definition, when a government commits genocide in the name of its “interests,” a Patriot of that country would be someone who supports that government’s authority to do so because of its interests. It follows then by this understanding that there is both morally just Patriotism and morally reprehensible Patriotism depending on the situation. True Patriotism must be more idealistic. A better definition of Patriotism would be: one who defines as his or her interests the welfare and betterment of humanity, and supports and promotes those interests within the country he or she loves. **note, I highlight this, because this is my succinct definition of Patriotism** Patriotism does mean loyalty, but it means loyalty to the deepest principles of human life as the lens through which we evaluate justice or injustice at home and abroad – supporting and defending a nation in its fight for those universal interests, denouncing and resisting a nation in its attempts to undermine or attack those universal interests.

The greatest threat to this understanding of Patriotism is not blatant anti-Patriotism (i.e., the myth of people who actively oppose the welfare and betterment of humanity and deliberately work to see the demise of those convictions in the nation they love) but rather pseudo-Patriotism (i.e., the reality of people who ignorantly sacrifice their emphasis on the welfare and betterment of humanity for the sake of more localized, trivial and selfish interests, and naively contribute to the demise of such ideals through greed, prejudice, selfishness, fanaticism and short-sightedness.) Because of the great and consistent threat of pseudo-patriotism in the name of what I believe to be true Patriotism, and especially in light of the sweeping Patriotic rallying cry heard around the nation after our recent suffering, it is necessary to look carefully and critically at some of the major differences between Patriotism and pseudo-Patriotism. We must do this so that we might not perpetuate violence and suffering in the name of “Patriotism.”

True Patriotism is in part a standing by our deep convictions on a personal level, even if those convictions may put us at odds with majority opinion at some points in time, as well as advocating and promoting those convictions for the nation as a whole to which one belongs. Patriotism degenerates into pseudo-Patriotism though the choice to allow our personal convictions and deeply held values to be influenced or outright sacrificed under the duress of popular opinion or governmental manipulation, or when we cease promoting these convictions at the local, state and national level.

True Patriotism means in part resolving that the convictions we do hold as sacred be determined under the guidance of life principles such as social equality, equal protection under the law, recourse to due process, the sustaining of civil liberties and the fight for human rights and human dignity not merely on one continent or for one group of people, but for all human life. The true Patriot is one who struggles to defend these convictions and promote them within the very structure of the country that he or she holds dear. Patriotism degenerates into pseudo-Patriotism when we base such convictions on shallow beliefs or values contrary to the life principles previously described. When one attempts to justify a mindset of extreme selfishness, vindictiveness or miser-ing under the blanket of “Patriotism,” it has ceased to be noble, and become something else. Likewise, when one ceases the struggle to defend the proper foundation of convictions and promote them within the framework of the nation, one ceases to be a Patriot.

True Patriotism means swearing allegiance to something greater than one nation. The true Patriot is a lover of life. And as such, he or she pledges allegiance to the international community of life as a Patriot of the human nation above all else. The refrain of true Patriotism is not “God bless America” alone, but also “God bless the global nation of humanity and all of its states.” Put simply, the true Patriot loves his or her country not in isolation, but rather as member and participant of a global community. Love of country implies love of world and the two should never be separated. Patriotism degenerates into pseudo-Patriotism when an individual denies, either deliberately or indirectly, the place of a specific nation within the community of nations as well as the responsibility and duty such a place entails. Pseudo-patriotism looks away from the state of the world as long as it does not impact one’s self-interest or one’s “bottom line.”

But most importantly above all else, true Patriotism means asking questions about the state of affairs and continuously examining the status quo. Patriotism degenerates into pseudo-Patriotism when we give our unquestioning assent to anything and everything that is presented to us as fact by governmental leadership, agencies, policy makers (as well as our friends and neighbors!) in the name of national loyalty.

The danger in the shadows of this national embracing of Patriotism is exactly what kind of Patriotism is being embraced. True Patriotism implies a great responsibility and commitment while pseudo-patriotism is little more than emotionalism and blindness wrapped up in Patriotic symbols. It is easy to get caught up in emotionalism, especially when we as a nation are hurting and looking for ways to feel unified and whole. But the real meaning of Patriotism is more than a good feeling – in fact it can sometimes feel not so good. And it is more than supporting ones country – in fact it can sometimes mean speaking out against one’s country.

Who are the true Patriots, the flag wavers or the flag burners? The answer depends on the context of the situation, because true Patriotism means thinking critically and acting accordingly at any cost. It means asking questions about, not simply accepting without thinking, the course of one’s nation, and being willing to receive answers even when those answers hurt. It means that as well as the easy task of praising our successes and strengths we must also find the courage to speak out against our wrong actions and behavior. A true Patriot accepts the reality that no nation, no matter how great, is free from mistake making or from the temptation to do things in the name of it’s ideologies that undercut the very foundation of the life principles supporting our deepest convictions as human beings.

Pseudo-patriotism is so dangerous because it is the synthetic manufacturing of emotions in combination with a completely blind and unquestioning attitude towards our national actions. Many people have historically pointed the finger at those who asked questions about the positions, policies and ideologies of their nation and called them cowardly haters of the country. But in truth, uncritical, unthoughtful, blindly dogmatic, ultra-emotional flag waving under the guise of Patriotism is the most unpatriotic mindset imaginable.
Some may claim that I have twisted the definition of Patriotism to into a meaning never intended. Others may more delicately suggest that while my intent may be good, I am attempting to use the term Patriotism to represent something it cannot represent. If that is indeed true, it is a painful shame, and I suspect a large cause of the current state of affairs throughout the world. And so, to the charge that this is a complete reinterpretation of the meaning of Patriotism, I can only respond that if it is, so be it.

I especially like this:

A better definition of Patriotism would be: one who defines as his or her interests the welfare and betterment of humanity, and supports and promotes those interests within the country he or she loves. **note, I highlight this, because this is my succinct definition of Patriotism** Patriotism does mean loyalty, but it means loyalty to the deepest principles of human life as the lens through which we evaluate justice or injustice at home and abroad – supporting and defending a nation in its fight for those universal interests, denouncing and resisting a nation in its attempts to undermine or attack those universal interests.

Thank you for posting this.

Philosopher Kant said....apply your actions to the population of the world...and ask yourself, if everyone did it, would it be a good thing that yields a positive outcome for mankind? If the answer is yes, you are on the right track.

Many people have fought for this country, in many, many ways...be it during the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Feminist movement, Martin Luther King Jr., etc... Can we agree that those sacrifices were for the furthering of Good?

Patriotism to me means that where we are is not where we will stay.

In the comfort of our living rooms, in front of our computers, are we to be as cynical to believe that those who died for the "love of their country" are to be marginalized? Not to be considered true patriots?

When we wake up everyday in America, in our hearts of hearts, don't we know that we are lucky to be Americans? can we argue that the French (am one) do thank their lucky stars that they can go on their one to two hour lunch break to eat a superb lunch and realize that being French is an honor and a priviledge caused by a luck of the draw?

Yes, we have lost sight of what Patriotism is.

Yes, we recoil at the word, because we do not own it.

Yes, Patriotism has a dictionnary meaning....but it has a far more reaching implication.

There is nothing guilty about loving ones country.......as long as patriotism is utilized to mean that we are working for change, because we know America can be better than what it now is.

To use Patriotism to incorporate the thought that "I can make a difference, and I think it's worth it"....is a noble idea indeed.

Yes, I am proud to be an American (naturalized at that), but only because I know that the possibility for positive progress is not unattainable.....Patriotism means to me that I have a duty to participate to get it done.

Remember God doesn't just bless America....but certainly it is included.

The buddhas and bodhisattvas bless America, too. :-)

altogether. We'll never agree on the definition of patriotism, and words like this one, which carry so much emotional baggage, tend to create more problems than they solve. I tend to agree with you that the most patriotic among us are the most activist, the most dissenting, the most loyal to Constitutional values and liberties (I think that's what you were getting at, if I read you correctly), but the fact remains that patriotism is most often used to attack others, to stifle dissent, to parade jingoism and crass nationalism. It's best to keep words like patriotism out of our debates altogether.

and to ignore it is to be fools to the lessons of the past 3 years.

Ordinary folks will not keep the word out of our debates....and we cannot foolishly ignore the elephant in the room.

If we concede language itself to the enemy, we have already lost.

...while they rightly disparage shallow, flag-waving patriotism, they sometimes mistakenly assume that all patriotism is of the shallow, flag-waving variety. I have heard many liberals mock patriotic citizens, as if anyone who has a flag flying from their front porch is somehow jingoistic or morally suspect. Remember Katha Pollitt? Makes me ill.

Here's an equation for you.

pro - Constitution + pro - America = anti - bush

Patriotism is concern, love and commitment to ones country and it's peoples. Not commitment to ones government, that is Nationalism.
That is why I have created the term "Mushroom Nation" for this Nationalistic community.
Mushroom Nation: Those who are kept in the dark, and thrive on massive quanities of Bu$h*t!

I also believe that we as American Patriots need to do what we can as to bring these Jingo-Mystics into the light. But then again we all know what happens to Mushrooms that are exposed to the light. So I belive the tactic should be a gradual exposure, so as not to melt their little caps! And as you stated above "time is not on our side."

but truth is.

welcome to DU zen types.

namaste,
-sweetheart

While truth can be communicated many ways by those who are honest listeners and tellers, in America, if truth is to be heard we basically will use language.

Milosevic took four years just working on controlling the language before the Serbs moved into Bosnia. Stopping the reich from defining the terms of the debate is very important if we are to be heard. Freedom Fries...terrorists...evil...WMD...Everyday, they are moving on the dialogue, taking Patriotism back, even for me up here in the middle of the woods talking to moose, is important.

Everyone already knows it before they open their traps... and they may choose to ignore it for a many layered fallacy that also IS.

There are forces at work greater than petty men's mind control games in this global power play we direct, act in and are audience for. Do you want your characters to win, and what exactly is winning.

There is no truth, no meaning but "i am".

Here we have a chance to contrapose the rhetoric of people who believe in time and self with the rhetoric of not. The film has broken and we are left in this moment without an ending... please don't give us one... the suspense is... :-)

... woof!

Thank you-feels good being here. This is a subteranian watch tower, it seems that alot of you feel that life is not a joke, and you dream of a better world, which calls for good company.
Mir, Paz, Salaam, it's all for peace.

that you sing of, and yet it is... ;-) sweetly we laugh as words but leaves lost of their tree.

A zen patriot wondered whether truth was to act in opposition to the BFEE or to remain in samadhi. No matter, no mind.

I am glad you feel this is a place for political vigilance. Good that somewhere in public such a refuge exists.

Namaste,

As we say in the underground to the overground, "together we can make a diffference" and the underground united will never be defeated!

the New American Patriotism steals the wind out of Bush's sails, and prevents him from using it to cover all the neo-con mess.

Here is what I deduce to be Clark's reasoning behind using this phrase:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=548650

Patriotism = blind faith
PATRIOTS question!

That's exactly what Clark is saying.:toast:

The Senator is a patriot, because he fights for our Constitution. If only our Congress people would listen.

Patriotism is not something we must fight the repugs for. They can not co-opt something that resides in our hearts.

that leaves out most Democrats! :nuke:

let it all out

shit, they won't touch ya

As for my statement....has anyone called for impachment of George Bush? Has anyone stood up and said "Ted Kennedy was RIGHT...the is a FRAUD perpetrated on the American people by an ignorant, regressive person like George W. Bush"

Has anyone actually tried to explain why Democrats should not be held to the standards that make an actual patriot?

I'm just asking...

I'm looking to my representatives. Fortunately, Barbara Lee speaks for me, but what about all the others? How many have been ignored?

my objection was not to patriotism per se, but rather the use of the term for political gain.

I suggested that I'd have no problem with Clark's plan if it'd been named "New American Community" instead of "New American Patriotism".

at the time, I was honestly unaware that Dean was already using that phrase.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_talkingpoints

I realize this is somewhat OT, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

for the record, I am not trying to hijack this thread or smear Clark in any way, shape, or form.

If we let the neocons determine what language we use, we're done for.

Neo-Cons have nothing to do with 'patriotism'..it is an economic position and not a demonstration of national affection
and your def...civic duty is at odds with the defs from
http://onelook.com/?w=patriotism&ls=a

18 of them and none classify it as a civic duty?

of letting the neocons win.

How?

I don't feel compelled to respond to the gutteral, knee-jerk accusations of the paleo-dems. :)

thanks any, babe. smooches! :*

off the bridge today or tomorrow.

I believe that we can still right the neo-cons wrong......we just can't wait much longer. The world understands that the Problems is Bushco and his cabal. However, if Bush is elected for another term, all understanding from the world goes out the window! Check out how a definite coalition is forming between Russia and Europe......they are already showing their united hand about their stance on Iran....

got this from another poster:

Britain, France and Germany have offered to supply civilian nuclear technology to Iran

Now that's REALLY gotta piss off the USA !! ?

. . From the article:

"Of course, there are very difficult situations when human rights are concerned... we have known that in Kosovo. So in rare situations, we have to address these kinds of problems by military means. But you have to have the support of the international community... If there is one country that imagines it can solve this matter alone, we are going to see more vengeance, more difficulties, more problems, and the world is going to be more unstable."

Mr De Villepin's remarks underline the continuing differences between France, which led European opposition to the Iraq war, and Washington and London.

During a brief visit to London this week, Mr De Villepin had lunch with the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and recorded the prestigious Dimbleby Lecture, which will be screened tomorrow on BBC1.

After his visit, it was announced that Mr De Villepin and Mr Straw and the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, are to visit Tehran on Monday to try to defuse the nuclear arms row. To the annoyance of the Bush administration, Britain, France and Germany have offered to supply civilian nuclear technology to Iran in return for its abandoning any ambition to seek nuclear weapons capability."

it's too amusing watching the clarkies drink the kool-aid. :)

After the September attacks in the US a document entitled "Defending Civilization" was compiled by a conservative organization called the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. It set out to show that the American universities did not respond to the September attacks with a proper degree of "anger, patriotism, and support of military intervention." The report offered a list of 115 subversive remearks taken from college newspapers or made on college campuses.

What is a work in this report is the reduction of language to code. Cliches, coined by the state, become the only acceptable vocabulary. Everyone knows what to say and how to respond. It is scripted. Vocabulary shrinks so that the tyranny of nationalist rhetoric leaves people sputtering state-sanctioned slogans....Chris Hedges

That is why we must take back our language.

were rebels who overthrew a legitimate long-established government.

I've never liked the word "patriot". I prefer to think of myself as a citizen instead, a willing contributor to the good of the community.

to describe the Neocon version....We could call it FAKERIOTISM. Singular: Fakeriot.

RC

It's where you love you a country enough to tell them when they are wrong, even if you have to get tough about it. A person warning that America is getting nationalistic or any other harsh criticism might just be a person concerned about America.

Patriotism is also where everybody is considered to be a citizen of the country, even those we don't agree with. That's what America is supposed to be about.

In Europe, we don't struggle ourselves about this type of concepts for a long time. (Except the ultra-right wing)