Patriotism

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is it possible to love your country too much?


You have seen them. The flag-toters. The "America can do no wrong" crowd. Their cars, houses, and clothes all decked out in red, white, and blue. Such people will agree with absolutely any policy the government applies, and anyone who disagrees is, quite frankly, an evil liberal.


Nationalism breeds pride, arrogance, greed, violence, and selfishness. I feel that history backs up this statement. Can't just about every war in the history of humanity be at least partially attributed to nationalistic interests? You would be hard pressed to cite one that doesen't.

I reject the notion that a good citizen should sport an un-conditional love for their country. I hate America in a number of aspects. I consider this my civic duty, as a matter of fact. How may we ever progress as a country if we neglect to lobby for change, when the need for change becomes apparent?

The world is far from achieving the utopian idea of a united global state. And as long as we are stuck in the current condition of blind patriotism indifferent to the needs of others, the farther away this goal becomes.

When many countries compete, some countries will lose.

Personally, I do not want any losers.
I would urge everyone to support not merely the interests of ones own country, but the interests of every country, every person, inevery corner of the planet. I believe that such a change of attitude is the first step towards peace.

It is human nature to compete. But it does not have to be this way. We have clearly evolved much since the first humans. God forbid we take advantage of these new capabilities and progress beyond our primitive ancestors.




Tell me what you think. Can one be patriotic without crossing the line over into 'nationalistic'? Are there any upsides to patriotism? What is even the purpose of patriotism? Is it ones civic duty to be patriotic?

[keltzkroz]

If its ok, I would like to ask a question. Given only two choices and you must choose one, between your countrymen having too little patriotism, or having too much patriotism, what would your choice be? For you, which one would be the lesser 'evil'?

I've was born in a country with very little patriotism among many of its citizens. It's not pretty.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I don't see why we can't find a healthy medium somewhere.

Thing is, I am assuming the country you came from (which is it, by the way?) did not possess much global influence. Not much harmful bias can result from a patriotism in a less signifigant group of people.

Obviously this is just the opposite for the US, who's partiotism greatly influences the international force we exert (always tipping our policies in favor of self-indulgence).

It's not exactly a bad thing either, because, in my view nothing short of a global empire (a true civilization) can aspire to enforce human rights everywhere.

But what country has ever done that? The Romans, Spanish, and Soviet empires all conquered for nothing more than power and riches.

Examine the major US campaigns for "human rights". Why did we enter WW1 and 2? We were incited into revenge, and in the 2nd our well-being was in danger (which is reasonable justification). Regardless, we didn't care about the Jew extermination or massacre of British and French. Hence why we only entered after being attacked ourselves. Vietnam and Korea? Our influence in the area was at stake. Both Gulf wars (including the current one)? Oil, obviously (funny that we supposedly cared about poor little Kuwait, but don't flinch at much larger scale genocides, don't you think?)

Frankly, I can't comprehend why you would not classify the US as a Predator Empire. How do you explain the (largely secret) battles in Venezuela, for example? With America, gain is the objective, human rights is the justification.

Who died and gave us the right to do that?

I have no problem with the military getting involved in other countries grisly affairs (albiet not necissarily using violence). If you are walking down the street and see a big guy oppressing a smaller guy, would you not try to intervene? Frankly, I cannot comprehend why a supposedly "compassionate" country like ourselves is not involved in places like Sundan.

Of course, anyone with oil will ALWAYS garner America's "sympathy". Those poor, poor Iraqi's (who, I might add, don't even crack the top ten list of most oppressed nations, and didn't even make the top FIFTY for poorest).

[Dilettante]

Cephus wrote:

Who died and gave us the right to do that? Heck, we can't even enforce human rights in our own country, why would anyone want us to do it in theirs?

Oh yeah, we don't ask, do we? We impose our will on others and pursue our own purposes throughout the world. If anyone gets in our way, we trump up reasons to invade and depose their government, forcing the people to accept a western democracy (under our control, of course), whether they want one or not.

A western democracy may not be the best conceivable system, but it's the lesser evil nowadays. I don't believe in cultural relativism, and so far the west has produced certain cultural products which have not yet been equaled: science, philosophy, and democracy. Alternatively, I suppose a dictatorship might be useful in certain cases of national emergency, but you can't live in a permanent state of emergency.

Unfortunately you don't usually enforce human rights through dialogue. Force is necessary. And yes, it would be great if there was an alternative empire which embodied all that is good and none of the bad, but there isn't. Could China, for example, do a better job? Or Russia? My view is that we've got to work with what there is, not with what there could be, as long as that possibility is not realized.
The Persnickety Platypus wrote:

But what country has ever done that? The Romans, Spanish, and Soviet empires all conquered for nothing more than power and riches.

I disagree. The Romans did also aspire to civilize (from "civis") the world, and both the Spanish and the Soviets had an ideology and a social model to transmit (Catholicism and Socialism respectively). So it was not just power and riches, it was a mission, however wrongheaded you might think it was.

Frankly, I can't comprehend why you would not classify the US as a Predator Empire. How do you explain the (largely secret) battles in Venezuela, for example? With America, gain is the objective, human rights is the justification.

Because it's a mixed type. The US sometimes behaves as a P.E. (like in Central and South America), but sometimes as a G.E. as well.
Sometimes the US has restored to power a democratically elected president (like Aristide in Haiti) and has brought democracy to places like Japan, or aided the rebirth of democracy in post-WW II Germany. I think you are oversimplifying certain things. Very possibly, rather than grabbing Iraqi oil (how much oil has left Iraq for the US?), the US was trying to block access (to that oil) to China, which is the only emerging superpower that can compete with the US.

It's always tricky to judge intentions. But one thing is our intentions, and another what is actually achieved. Sometimes a good thing may result even if the original intentions were selfish. Supposing US participation in WW II was entirely selfish, the result was that Nazism was erased from Europe.

[Cephus]

A western democracy may not be the best conceivable system, but it's the lesser evil nowadays. I don't believe in cultural relativism, and so far the west has produced certain cultural products which have not yet been equaled: science, philosophy, and democracy. Alternatively, I suppose a dictatorship might be useful in certain cases of national emergency, but you can't live in a permanent state of emergency.

It's up to the people in those countries to decide what system they're going to live under, it isn't up to us. If they are really unhappy with their system of government, they will rise up and overthrow the government. It's no surprise that they haven't done that. We have no right to impose our will on others, simply because we have the right to do so. If we do, we're no better than dictators.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I disagree. The Romans did also aspire to civilize (from "civis") the world, and both the Spanish and the Soviets had an ideology and a social model to transmit (Catholicism and Socialism respectively). So it was not just power and riches, it was a mission, however wrongheaded you might think it was.

It's always tricky to judge intentions. But one thing is our intentions, and another what is actually achieved. Sometimes a good thing may result even if the original intentions were selfish. Supposing US participation in WW II was entirely selfish, the result was that Nazism was erased from Europe.

"End over means" is a dangerous justification to operate under. Many a leader has reverted to this in an effort to impose their will, often mistakenly assuming that they possess the foresight dictating the effects of their actions.

Adolph Hitler employed this line of thought. His new world order ended up falling to democracy, splitting Germany's "destined empire" into feeble halves, and costing the lives of millions of innocent civilians and minorities.

Sometimes the US has restored to power a democratically elected president (like Aristide in Haiti) and has brought democracy to places like Japan, or aided the rebirth of democracy in post-WW II Germany. I think you are oversimplifying certain things. Very possibly, rather than grabbing Iraqi oil (how much oil has left Iraq for the US?), the US was trying to block access (to that oil) to China, which is the only emerging superpower that can compete with the US.

It's hard to find a so called charitable US action that is not underlied by some concievable ulterior motive. Notice we have not set foot in Sundan. Or any other oppressed nation void of capital, for that matter.

Entering Iraq to block China's oil access (at the cost of thousands of lives) is just as corrupt an incentive as any. China is a thread to our dominance, and woe be to America on the day that we are inable to forcibly dictate every nations affairs to suit out agenda.

It's up to the people in those countries to decide what system they're going to live under, it isn't up to us. If they are really unhappy with their system of government, they will rise up and overthrow the government.

Would America be a free nation today had we not recieved aid from France in the Revolution?

I do not think the Revolution was a very noble cause from ANY involved country's perspective, but it serves the point perfectly. There is no reason why we should not help other countries to aspire to their goals, especially when they request our help. Clearly the United State's only problem is determining which plights are of moral cause (and allowing nationalistic incentives to play part in the involvement).

[McCulloch]

I do not think the Revolution was a very noble cause from ANY involved country's perspective, but it serves the point perfectly.

Canada's first major influx of English speaking people were the United Empire Loyalists, fleeing from persecution by the newly freed American States.
In 1793, slavery was severly limited in Upper Canada (now called Ontario). By 1804 it was abolished, long before the 1833 abolition passed by British Parliament. Canada then became a safe haven for refugees fleeing from the slave holding USA using the underground railroad.
In the 1960s, Canda again became a safe place for Americans who did not want to go to war against their will in South-east asia.
Two English speaking North American nations, one had a revolution; one did not. Which one was more noble in terms of human rights?

[Cephus]

Would America be a free nation today had we not recieved aid from France in the Revolution?

We asked them to get involved, which is a lot more than I can say for any of the other countries we've screwed up. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan asked us to invade and replace their government, and neither is doing all that hot as a result. None of the countries where we've destabilized their governments and put dictators in power, just because they said they'd support U.S. policies, are doing all that well either.

Again, we're not doing this at the behest of the population, we're doing it out of self-interest and political agenda.

[Dilettante]

A western democracy may not be the best conceivable system, but it's the lesser evil nowadays. I don't believe in cultural relativism, and so far the west has produced certain cultural products which have not yet been equaled: science, philosophy, and democracy. Alternatively, I suppose a dictatorship might be useful in certain cases of national emergency, but you can't live in a permanent state of emergency.

It's up to the people in those countries to decide what system they're going to live under, it isn't up to us. If they are really unhappy with their system of government, they will rise up and overthrow the government. It's no surprise that they haven't done that. We have no right to impose our will on others, simply because we have the right to do so. If we do, we're no better than dictators.

I agree. But how are they to decide what political system they want? Do they take a vote? Wait...that would be democracy. Do the existing leaders choose for them? If so, why not the US? Both scenarios would be undemocratic and dictatorial. If they are really unhappy with the US, they will rise, as you say, and send them out (like the Vietnamese did).

The Romans didn't ask the Iberians or the Gauls whether they wanted to be Romanized or not. Empires don't do that. But empires (at least Generating Empires) sometimes raise the living standards of the conquered peoples.

It may sound pessimistic or cynical, but history is about different nations expanding and conflicting with each other. Some nations impose their version of a world order on others. Such a world order will no doubt be unjust if we judge it from the standpoint of so-called "natural law", but what is natural law anyway? Where is it written?More often than not it's not a matter of choosing between order and "justice", but between different types of order (Pax Romana over Pax Barbara, or Pax Sovietica over Pax Americana, etc).
The idea of justice you are invoking is an old one, dating back to the Roman idea of giving "to each his own". But that already meant back then that the runaway slave had to be given back to the slaveowner, and it would mean, nowadays, that the woman in the burkha must stay with her fundamentalist husband because that's the law of the land, and that the African girl must endure female circumcision if that's the custom in her tribe. So, you see, it's far from perfect also.

[Dilettante]

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:

"End over means" is a dangerous justification to operate under. Many a leader has reverted to this in an effort to impose their will, often mistakenly assuming that they possess the foresight dictating the effects of their actions.

Adolph Hitler employed this line of thought. His new world order ended up falling to democracy, splitting Germany's "destined empire" into feeble halves, and costing the lives of millions of innocent civilians and minorities.

That was not exactly my point. Actually I meant to say that because people cannot predict exactly what the consequences of their actions will be, they results are sometimes better (or less evil) than intended. By the same token, many well-intentioned acts have disastrous consequences.

Adolf Hitler failed because the Americans and the Soviets flexed their muscles. If they had opted for gentle persuasion, Chamberlain-style, we might all be speaking German nowadays.

It's hard to find a so called charitable US action that is not underlied by some concievable ulterior motive. Notice we have not set foot in Sundan. Or any other oppressed nation void of capital, for that matter.

All states defend their interests (not just the US). States like France or Germany, which opposed the invasion of Iraq, had ulterior motives also.
With some actions, however, it's hard to see what the US had to gain (although there must have been something, however small, of course, or troops would not have been sent). I'm thinking not only of Haiti's Aristide, but also of Operation Restore Hope in 1992 in Somalia.

Entering Iraq to block China's oil access (at the cost of thousands of lives) is just as corrupt an incentive as any. China is a thread to our dominance, and woe be to America on the day that we are inable to forcibly dictate every nations affairs to suit out agenda.

And I never said it was altruistic. I just said it was not as simple as "grab the oil and run." But any nation which aspires to being an empire must try and block its competitor's growth to avoid conflicts.
I don't think the US, even as the sole global superpower, can dictate every affair in every nation (the US is not omnipotent). Because it can't, and because empires are historical creations, the US will one day lose power, gradually or abruptly, and another global empire will dictate our affairs. It could be the Muslims, but I don't think so. I think it will probably be China.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Canada's first major influx of English speaking people were the United Empire Loyalists, fleeing from persecution by the newly freed American States.
In 1793, slavery was severly limited in Upper Canada (now called Ontario). By 1804 it was abolished, long before the 1833 abolition passed by British Parliament. Canada then became a safe haven for refugees fleeing from the slave holding USA using the underground railroad.
In the 1960s, Canda again became a safe place for Americans who did not want to go to war against their will in South-east asia.
Two English speaking North American nations, one had a revolution; one did not. Which one was more noble in terms of human rights?

You've got it all wrong, I am 100% for any revolution of noble cause. However, in that statement I was referring to a specific revolution; the American plight for independence. The American "patriots" were just a bunch of rich elite trying to get out of paying taxes, the British monarchy was merely protecting their precious investment, and the French only joined in attempt to fight back the international influence of their arch nemesis.

We asked them to get involved, which is a lot more than I can say for any of the other countries we've screwed up. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan asked us to invade and replace their government, and neither is doing all that hot as a result.

I was more referring to the Vietnam and Korean conflicts, where we were actually fighting ALONGSIDE their forces.

Those countries called for aid. Of course, most nations who cry help to big brother America go unanswered. That is, unless our forign policy status is lagging, in which case we may send over a little pocket change to tide them over untill the next deadly offensive or disease outbreak. Anyone notice the meager amount we initially sent to the areas ravaged by last years tsunami? It took international criticism before the real meat started flowing in.

That was not exactly my point. Actually I meant to say that because people cannot predict exactly what the consequences of their actions will be, they results are sometimes better (or less evil) than intended. By the same token, many well-intentioned acts have disastrous consequences.

We cannot always accurately fortell the consequences of our actions, I agree with you there. However, praising evil campaigns for the unpredicted good they might have brought about is justification for any ruling faction to continue their oppression. "I know this widescale genocide we are undertaking may SEEM evil, but trust us guys, you will enjoy the results".

For this reason, I absolutely cannot lend praise to imperialistic empires whos brutal conquers might have brought about some good, in some particular places. Typically, evil intentions lead to evil effects. We must not abandon this broad (yet typically accurate) generalization, lest we offer a moral venue for its continuance.

All states defend their interests (not just the US).

And it should not be this way.

All these silly borders. With all our technological advances (internet, travel, television, telephones, ect), few things remain to impede the diffusion of cultures, which in the past was the prime factor barring the accomplishment of a united global state. But this glimmer of hope is continuously squashed by many people's purely asinine tendancy to patriotism and national loyalty.

This is why I refuse to be patriotic. Devotion to one's own country results in complete negligence to every other. Screw America. I'm rooting for the world instead.

And I never said it was altruistic. I just said it was not as simple as "grab the oil and run."

Indeed. Our government, as most others (aside from those too busy trying to stay alive due to predatation) spends 100% of it's time plotting ways to screw over other peoples. The plots are never simple, and successful ones must always be inconspicuous enough to pass the ignorant stare of the honest public. If so many people were not proud enough to blatantly deny the various conspiracies our elected officials perform, I expect Washington would be burnt to the ground by now. Once again, it is that darned patriotic attitude that stifles any and all real progression.

But any nation which aspires to being an empire must try and block its competitor's growth to avoid conflicts.

Then we must abolish all empires.

People the world over must band together for the united socialist state to succeed. Powerful checks must be put in place to prevent individual factions from rising to power. All existing governments must be dismantled, and rebuilt into a single aggregation working towards the achievment of a single likeminded goal.



How will I accomplish this? Well, still working that part out.....