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?

[Dilettante]

ST88 wrote:

Dilettante mentioned the Spanish contribution to civilization. But what, exactly, does that mean? What is the difference between a mythical history and an actual one? Not to put you on the spot, Dil, but what does Charles V of Hapsburg or Cervantes have to do with who you are as a person?

As I see it, the difference between mythical history and actual history is that the former presents no blemishes, no rough edges, and is usually treated as dogma. Since it is based on metaphysical concepts such as the "Volkgeist", and on essentialist, tautological, megaric ideas of culture, it seems invulnerable to contrary evidence. You either believe it or disbelieve it, much like a fundamentalist religion. By contrast, the latter can be examined closely, it can be held up to scrutiny, we can discover its faults, and see how its good and bad parts fit with each other. We can dissect it and find out how it was never perfect. You can't do that with invented history.
As for Charles V, his ideas about Europe still resonate and I would say our relationship with France started to go bad back then, when they joined the Turks against Spain. Charles V preferred to choose as his aides and ministers among people of proven merit rather than among the top crust of the nobility. He thought that each person was "a child of his/her works", to borrow a phrase from Cervantes. Cervantes also had an influence on me through his celebrated novel Don Quixote. It would be hard to put in a nutshell the many ways in which Cervantes is still present in today's Spanish culture.
I agree with you about the irrational fear of losing our identity (and I also agree about Blair--he's just a smart guy and he would maintain good relations with any American president, not just Bush). Also, my universalist tendencies make me think that a world government wouldn't be such a bad idea.

[ST88]

As I see it, the difference between mythical history and actual history is that the former presents no blemishes, no rough edges, and is usually treated as dogma. Since it is based on metaphysical concepts such as the "Volkgeist", and on essentialist, tautological, megaric ideas of culture, it seems invulnerable to contrary evidence. You either believe it or disbelieve it, much like a fundamentalist religion. By contrast, the latter can be examined closely, it can be held up to scrutiny, we can discover its faults, and see how its good and bad parts fit with each other. We can dissect it and find out how it was never perfect. You can't do that with invented history.

But if there were a perfect state of actual history with no mythic elements, would there be such a thing as patriotism? I submit that no such state could possibly exist, and that current "nationalities" are based on various combinations of the two. Myths are necessary to maintain cohesion and historical truths are necessary to project legitimacy. But how much myth is required in order to maintain the cohesion? And what's the difference between the myths required to support the illusion of nationalism and the truths that are held up in order to do so? You seem to be saying that all myths are soft-focus dreamy fairy tales, and that all truths are complicated and ugly. But there are national myths that are based on facts, and national truths that are clouded by circumstance. Many stories are mixtures of the two because of the unknowable nature of history.

Cervantes also had an influence on me through his celebrated novel Don Quixote. It would be hard to put in a nutshell the many ways in which Cervantes is still present in today's Spanish culture.

That doesn't quite answer the question. What is the difference between you, as a Spaniard, finding a connection with the text of Quixote and someone else who is not a Spaniard also finding a connection, perhaps the same one? Is it necessary to be from an artist's home country to truly appreciate the work?

Additionally, is Cervantes enmeshed in Spanish culture because he was Spanish or was it the other way around? That is, does Cervantes resonate with Spain because he came from there, or did Spain embrace him as a native son and alter themselves because of him because he was a Spaniard? How many non-Spaniards have affected the culture of Spain?

For example, both England and America lay "claims" to the cultural legacy of Edgar Allan Poe. What does that mean?

[Dilettante]

ST88:
You raise lots of very good points and ask very interesting questions. I wish I had more time to think through all the issues. It's late at night here but I'll try to answer as best I can under the circumstances.

I wouldn't say history is unknowable, but I'll admit that perfect knowledge of history is unattainable. I understand what you mean. Perhaps I should have used the term "pseudohistory" instead of "myth". In any case, as you say, some myths are necessary or at least inevitable. Myths can be illuminating (like Plato's Myth of the Cave), they can also be confusionary and obscurantist (like the Noah myth, or the Tower of Babel), or maybe just ambiguous. In other words, they can teach a clear lesson or an unclear one. Historical myths are based on tradition rather than historical facts. Of course, those traditions might have originated from facts, but those facts are probably corrupted or altered by memory. History and memory are opposites.

I agree that, if we all had a perfect knowledge of history with no mythical elements, it would be impossible to support our different nationalisms. Would that be desirable? Aren't myths necessary? Modern nations arise from states, a universal state might end up producing its own myths, maybe a universal nation or a single world culture. But that's political science fiction for the moment.

I don't know how much myth is necessary to keep people together. I just think illuminating myths are preferable to obscurantist myths. What I consider dangerous are those national identities that certain people attempt to derive from a remote past (the early Medieval period, or even Prehistory), as if they were "eternal essences" existing apart from the individuals which make up the current society. Nostalgia for what never was and a certain mythology of the good savage are behind many "liberation movements" worldwide and also behind some nationalisms.

As for Don Quixote, I don't think you have to be a Spaniard to appreciate it, but a thorough knowledge of the language, history, and culture of Spain does help a lot. It gives you a richer, deeper perspective. Also, there are many levels in Don Quixote and there's probably something for everyone, but the more you know about Spanish society and culture of the time, the less you will miss. Having said that, I must add that too many people in today's Spain lack those clues, and the way the language has changed makes it difficult for them to follow the novel. I suppose it's the same with Shakespeare.

Cervantes would have been a different person had he been born elsewhere, no doubt about that. He was a product of a certain society and culture. But he also made his contributions to that society and to that culture. Real nations, real cultures, are dynamic, they are not disembodied essences waiting to be rescued by freedom fighters.

So I guess it's both. It's a two-way thing.

Many non-Spaniards shaped Spain, beginning with the Muslims against whom Spanish national identity was formed. There was Charles V who had been raised in Ghent and did not learn Spanish until after he was king of Spain. Spanish culture was first made homogeneous by a foreign power, Rome. It was influenced by Sephardic Jews and Muslims, by different invaders, and by the people who were colonized by Spain. But many of those foreigners became Spanish themselves in the process. Columbus is a case in point.

England, or Britain in general, could lay claims to a lot of early American culture, I suppose (what about Henry James?). But with time the US developed its own culture distinct from British culture. It's funny that WH Auden became a US citizen, but TS Eliot went in the opposite direction.

Well, it's really late. I must go to bed. I hope I have answered at least some of your questions.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Hello, back once again to remind you that patriotism is a complete crock.



I read recently that up to 10% of Bush voters in last election supported him, not because they aligned with him on the issues, but because they saw it as the "patriotic" thing to do.

"He may be wrong, but I feel that is is our American duty to support him no matter what, because he is our president."

A friend of mine said that to me a while back. U.N.B.E.L.I.E.V.A.B.L.E.

It seems a great number of people will latch on to the established government just to escape the shame and burden of having to make it better. Some people will go to their death beds believing that America is the free-est, most democratic, and most charitable nation on earth. Of course, to accede to the opposite would be a surrender of their bragging rights. That's right, God forbid a petty thing like reality spoil your contented state of nationalistic arrogance.

For all those still subjected into believing that the US actually is the epitome of industrialized nations, I humbly offer you the dreaded reality.

Yes, not only has America earned the title of industrialized crime center of the universe, we have also reverted to full fledged plutocracy (by DEFINITION), and our "worker rights" resemble something out of feudal middle age Europe.

"America: The World police."
"Defender of freedom."
"Champion of rights."

Don't give me that crap. The only "help" we offer is the kind that expects something bigger and better in return. "Charity" must have adopted some sort of convulted new meaning while I was stuck in the loathful confines of prejudice-free subjective reality.

I am chastised by society for even daring to venture into the forbidden realm of civic responsibility. "Hah, your part of the "blame America" crowd, arn't you?" Yeah, I feel it is necissary to accept the blame for things we have done, and in doing so invoking the possibility of making it right again. Yeah, I put global interests in greater priority than our concieted exclusive nationalistic agenda. I care about the world. So crucify me.

My mom is revolted by the fact that she raised a "rebel". Pretty sad that deviating from the crap our country institutes is grounds to be considered a "rebel". "Why can't you just go with the flow?" Well mom, because our country is 'flowing' straight in the path of a waterfall. If reaching social progress means fighting my way up stream, so be it.

The equation is consistant. Patriotism=nationalism=ignorance=complatancy. Complatancy leaves no room for improvement. Down is the only way to go in emulating our 'proud Americans'. The same holds true for the unfortunate nations our imperialism will (and has) inflicted.

Hating America is my patriotic duty.






Well thanks for allowing me that rant. I feel much better now.

[juliod]

I read recently that up to 10% of Bush voters in last election supported him, not because they aligned with him on the issues, but because they saw it as the "patriotic" thing to do.

"He may be wrong, but I feel that is is our American duty to support him no matter what, because he is our president."

Yes, and this is the antithesis of Americanism.

I think it is not "patriotism" but genuine fascism. It's not "country", but "party". Many of these people are loyal to the Republican Party, not to the USA.

The same people saying we should support Bush because he's the President were the ones displaying "Charlton Heston is my president" stickers when Clinton was in office.

Note also, that for these same people, judicial decisions only "count" if they favor the conservative point of view. If not, it is the result of a supposed "judicial activism" and can be ignored.

Have you heard of "Unitary Executive Theory". It's the latest thing in conservative circles. It holds that executive power in the US is given to the President alone, and is not constrained by laws, the Constitution, Congress or the courts. In essense it holds that there is only one branch of government, in the person of the President. But a better expression for it came up in '30s Germany: Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Furher.

[Cephus]

Patriotism, simply to be patriotic, is really pretty silly. No country is perfect, none are really any better than any other objectively, so to sit around and say "We're #1!" really only expresses your personal opinion and is no better than having an argument between people in two states, "New Jersey is #1!"

Where it gets to be dangerous is when it blinds people to the problems of your own country because you think it can do no wrong. The second you start trying to force those around you to be just like you, because you've got a blind, unwavering faith that you're the best, that's when you and your silly patriotism has crossed the line.

[Dilettante]

The "dreaded reality" is that Mr. and Mrs. Abstract Human Being, citizens of the world, do not exist. Everybody is born into a culture, a nation, a country...

If patriotism means cutting yourself and your country off from the rest of the world, if it's coupled with racism or feelings of innate superiority, then it's definitely a bad thing and we should fight it wherever we see it.

But if patriotism means upholding the society which made you possible as an individual, participating in political life for a while (I'm against the professionalization of politics) and defending your nation and your culture when under attack, then I see nothing wrong with it.

Perhaps one day we'll see a world government and one global civilization. Maybe Alexander's dream will be realized, who knows. It wouldn't be such a bad thing, in my view. But until then, we are all citizens of different nations.

And no, the US is not perfect, but it's the only thing which resembles an empire nowadays.

[Cephus]

And no, the US is not perfect, but it's the only thing which resembles an empire nowadays.

And that's a good thing... how?

[Dilettante]

And no, the US is not perfect, but it's the only thing which resembles an empire nowadays.

And that's a good thing... how?

It's not exactly "a good thing", because the US does not represent "the forces of good extending across the globe." (It doesn't represent evil either--on the whole it's a mixed bag)

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.

Historically, there have been two kinds of empires:

There have been predator empires (like the British Empire, the Dutch, etc) whose main aim has been to obtain cheap resources and cheap labor overseas without a concern for the political development of the societies they conquered. Several predator empires can coexist, for example, by splitting the world into areas of influence. Let's call these P-Empires.

There have also been generating empires (like the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire and the Soviet Empire) whose purpose has been to elevate conquered peoples to a higher level of political organization, with varying degrees of success, and some failures also. Two generating empires will inevitably collide because of their universalism. But this is the kind of empire which can have good effects on the whole. Let's call it G-Empire.

The problem is: what kind of empire is the US? And the answer is tricky, because the US shows signs of being a mixed type, with characteristics from both. If the US manages to shed its P-Empire characteristics and evolve into a full-fledged G-Empire, the result can be more beneficial than harmful.

However, it would be foolish of me to make any predictions. Time will tell.

[Cephus]

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.

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.

Sure, our track record is *SO* good. It isn't like we torture prisoners or anything... oh wait, we do! Oh, and we don't spy on our own people... wait a minute...

And we're supposed to be protecting human rights?