Alright, I've seen a lot of different deffinitions of patriotism lately, especially with the war going on and I was wondering, what is it exactly? I mean, dictionary defifnitions don't seem to cut it.

Personally, I think it is being proud to be a citizen but that doesn't necessarily mean you agree with everything, heck, a lot of what people in power do. Having to follow a country with a blind eye isn't patriotism at all, its just being a sheep to me, thus the reason I get discouraged at what seems to be a bandwagon patriotism that has been taking over america with people just looking like fools. A lot of "patriots" put down other countries to make theirs look better. It seems like a childish tactic. Many of the main politicians now seem ot have a stance of "If you don't follow what we say, you're unpatriotic and against our country." which I feel is tyrannic especially in the united states when it was founded by people who did not wish to have to be put into one group and follow one set of rules as they did in england. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me at all.

Your guyses thoughts?

My personal idea of patriotism is kinda mixed. I feel that I am loyal to the ideals of the United States, the idea of equality and all, but not so much in the way that it has been acted out over a large portion of our history. What I belive is that one who points out the ills of a gov't in defense of a nation is much more a patriot than one who goes along with the gov't no matter what.

One thing I get ticked off at is the idea that one must support an action to support those involved. Take for instance the war in Iraq. I don't support the action at all, but I feel total support for the troops that are properly serving the United States. Some would merely deam my unsupport for the action as unpatriotic, I would not.

i personally feel that everyone should have some patriotism in this country [USA] but it shouldnt be over the top. in my sense of patriotism it is support for the country, not the government or the president. patriotism is just standing up and saying i am proud to live in this country where i have my freedoms. it isnt protesting or rallying against a war, that is personal opinion. meh im rambling >_< ... i cant really explain how i feel. it is the pride you have in your freedoms, not the government. i suppose being a patriot is also doing what is right for your country, but what people feel is in the eye of the beholder. Standing up against problems is patriotism since it is trying to help your country.

i have came up with my definition...

patriotism is helping move your country for its better and the better for all people, it is showing unfaltering effort to help support and move it to a better position.

I don't think patriotism in and of itself is a bad thing, nor do I think it's impossible to be patriotic and at the same time loyal to the human race as a whole.

However, I think that the fostering of patriotism is conducive to negative feelings toward other countries. By its very nature, it is one more thing that gives people reason to divide themselves against each other.

A true patriot is free to criticize his or her country. If you truly love your country you should hold it to an ideal, and criticize it when it falls short, if you turn your back on it and walk out when it falls short of the ideals it professes, then you're abandoning it.

So in short, a patriot is someone who wants his or her country to be the best that it can be, and who will work to make it so.

Indeed. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson

I agree, however, that one should be a citizen of the world first and of one's country second.

I'd define patriotism as a simple loyalty and love (maybe not as strong as love, but thats the basic idea) for the nation in which you reside, and the willingness to committ time and energy to bettering said nation. I personally think theres nothing wrong with patriotism.

What I do find wrong is when, under the guise of patriotism, people act in irresponsible and reprehensible manners. I'd agree with the quote by Malcolm X previously posted.

While there is nothing wrong with it at times, as was said by others "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." As you said Reign, when it is used as a facade for other actions, it crosses the line.

Well, there Patriotism, and theres PATRIOTISM.

I'm proud to be British, so far as the history is concerned, and the once-massive empire. That's Patriotism.

Then there's PATRIOTISM - where you take it too far...WW1 is a prime example...PATRIOTISM gone wild - where millions of people died because they wanted to make the "King's Land" proud. "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen is against this sort of Patriotism (read it, it's very good)

I agree. typically that type of patriotisim is called nationalism.

And Dulce et decorum est is a wonderful poem.

Shows nationalism in it's true colours - despite hollywood romanticising it in war films (e.g. Pearl Harbour - terrible event, terrible film)

I alwys thought patriotism was a type of hair gel

:blink: What?

yeah, that's a jaw dropping ZAH??? moment :blink: :huh:

Ignore him...he gets like this at times.

What good does patriotism bring? What harm does it bring? And does the good outweigh the harm?

Well, patriotism is good in the way that it brings the entire national community together (like in WW1, I guess) against a common goal despite disagreements.

Patriotism in a bad way is the sort that get's waaaaaay out of hand...becoming a form of obsession almost (I'm sure we've all met the kind)

A similar statement to what I said in the Zimbabwe & South Africa topic: Feeling devotion to one's country is fine. However, I would greatly prefer it that American considered themselves Americans second, and citizens of the world first.

We are all united in the war against insects.

Does the good that comes out of patriotism outweigh the harm that potentially stems from it (i.e. excessive nationalism)?

It depends on the situation. For the most part, however, I don't think that it does.

I dunno, I'd say that the world's improved quite a bit since the rise of nationalism. Remember that there's not only one alternative to nationalism, and it was definitely an improvement over the much more individual-centered and less-aware social structures that we had before.

As Nevin put it, one should be a citizen of the world first, and a citizen of their respective nation second. The priorities of our world should always come first, especially in this age of burgeoning globalization. It sickens me to the core when I hear people throw around the term "unpatriotic" or "anti-American"; often times they're simply too myopic to understand the farsighted goals many have in mind that aren't limited to something as fruitless and impossible as "winning" the war on "terror."

Lorpius, I must strongly disagree with you. I do not think the world has improved with the rise of nationalism. Often times, it makes us brutally arrogant and shortens our perspectives. Instead of searching for the care of the world in general, we continue through a narrow tunnel towards selfish gains. This in turn can and most often does impact the stability of those around us.

While the French feared losing influence in the backyard of their former African colonies, they decided to do one of the most horrendous things possible- support the Hutu power government of Rwanda during the genocide in 1994 as they feared an encroaching "anglophone" presence.

While we despised the Soviet Union, we were prepared to aid in the rise of radical Islam in Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Reagan administration and the CIA were willing to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to the Pakistani ISI and Saudi GID to support mujahedin fighters (allowing them to manipulate Afghan politics- which in turn led to the rise of the Taliban), set up radical schools of Islam on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier, and of course provide hard cash and weapons.

One of the things nationalism most often neglects is the law of unintended consequences- while one may think there is no harm in loving one's country and feverishly supporting it at times, there are always side effects. These side effects can range from placing a burden on another country to impacting global stability to the deaths of thousands of people. It's simply unreasonable to say that nationalism has had an overall beneficial effect on the globe.

Individualism should not be something to be abhorred- rather we should embrace it. By being individuals, we are certainly no "less socially aware." Rather, we are able to better understand our positions and help those who suffer. The inert masses are unwilling to propagate change. It is that minority of individuals that take it upon themselves to advance society that is our greatest asset.

Patriotism is like a noxious glue that bonds perfectly sensible individuals together, making them immobile. For society to advance, we must not fear striking out our own positions and disagreeing with our government- it's a necessity. Therefore the only beneficial form of patriotism I can think of is that in which we believe strongly in the ideals of our respective countries (ie. equality for all), and work towards those ideals as individuals.

You're talking globalism, not individualism. Nationalism may not be the best way to view the world, but it was definitely an improvement over what we saw before which was undeniably even more short-sighted and selfish.

And who was it that posted that Somali proverb in the Quotes thread, I think you can extend that out as a good explanation for these social groups. Humanity will be united when threatened by something which isn't human (again, like the insects). We haven't done so to a greater degree now because there's no real large, immediate threat that we think we should all work together against.

I posted the Somali proverb because I thought it was a good quote, not necessarily because I believe in the ideology. But yes, I understand how it is representative of our social groups.

While there may be no overarching enemy to unite us all together, that doesn't mean we can't still be united by forgoing nationalism in exchange for a sense of global unity to fix glaring problems (ie. the severe economic burdens some countries have, our impact on the environment, etc.)

And I am talking about globalism and individualism. The two go hand in hand in my opinion; globalism as an overarching look at our society and the world in general, and then individualism in maintaining our own thoughts and opinions and carrying out those actions in an appropriate manner- rather than attempting to lump ourselves together in the cause of a false form of patriotism.

Nationalism was definitely not the best way to view the world. We now must move past it and I outlined how we should do that in my previous post.

Yeah, it is a scary idea; but it does go a long way towards summarizing how we often see ourselves in the world, whether we acknowledge that viewpoint or not.

You're right, we can do it, I just see it as unlikely for the near future unless something unexpected happens. Right now, a lot of people do consider environmental degradation to be a major threat to humanity; but even if that's true, the reality of it hasn't entered the human conscience, it's not seen as something immediately pressing and life-threatening, so it doesn't galvanize us into doing something about it.

Over time, we may evolve into what you want; but without some kind of catalyst, it's likely to take a long time.

As far as I've been able to tell, there are two schools of thought as to what should be the next step up from nationalism (excluding, of course, those that say we should stay the way we are now). For lack of having read labels for them somewhere else, I've been referring to the one you're talking about as Globalism. It's a very humanitarian outlook, vaguely reminiscent of communism, but less structured. I see it as an ideal society that would be nice, but highly unlikely given current conditions.

The alternative I have yet to think of a name for; but it's sort of an extension of the process of Globalization we hear so much about today. Like Globalism, we eventually come together, give up war, etc. But not because we really care so much about each other, but because it's just more beneficial to ourselves. Sort of a Globalized Individualism. Free trade works best, and is most likely to lead to sustainable prosperity, when you don't have to worry about international borders and regulations and violence, and when there's one over-arching government maintaining a consistent monetary and fiscal policy to maintain that prosperity.

Yes, I've often thought it's a bit too idealistic an outlook, but one can hope that if we work hard enough towards achieving that goal, some progress in our society at least can be made?

I see what you're saying about the catalyst for the change in our outlook. So far, people have taken notice about global warming, economic crises and negative ethnicity in developing countries, and so on- but you're right, it hasn't galvanized the majority of us into action.

I think your final idea is a moderate one, but I feel that too many people would be left behind while everyone else is enjoying the sustainable prosperity. Well, this is turning into a more philosophical conversation on another subject, but yeah, I feel like I have a decent understanding of what you're saying.

I disagree with you here, actually. Individualism implies selfishness, narcissism. If we do consider ourselves citizens of the world first, of our country second, and as individuals third, then we will care first about the state of the world, secondly about the state of our country, and thirdly about the state of ourselves. I actually don't think that that country should be there at all, but that may be a necessity in the world we live in. The point, however, is that in a Globalist (as Lorpius calls it) view (or in a true Nationalist view, for that matter), we are willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of the whole. The problem is that patriotism often gets confused with doing everything the government says. Thomas Jefferson once said that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." He was quite right -- after all, he and the other founding fathers knew first-hand that because they did care about their countrymen, they needed to go against the corrupt government of England at the time. In the same way, we have a patriotic duty as citizens to speak out against the government when it is in error. But I digress, because that is still not where we need to be. We need to step beyond Nationalism to Globalism. We need to care about the world in such a way that we are willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of others. Love your neighbour as yourself, essentially. The problem is that it would be naive and foolish of us to expect the whole world to become Globalist, as there is of course no pressing threat to warrant such a change. So the view that I advocate is not so much one of Globalism, I suppose, as selflessness. The only person you have complete control over is yourself, and the surest way to influence others is not by words, but by example.

Incidentally, Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, and his "Shadow" series (not the direct sequels, but Ender's Shadow and its sequels, deal with the issue of humanity being united against a common threat and then going back to fighting with each other as soon as that threat is eliminated.

By cursing individualism, you imply that I, like others who believe in the libertarian communist ideal, believe it to be about self-gratification. This couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm still learning about anarchist/libertarian communist thought, but from what I have grasped, individualism is a way to break out of the masses in order to help those who need it (working towards the egalitarian ideal). By saying "be an individual", I don't mean, "Yeah, go live well and screw everyone else. You before your friend!" No.

Think for yourself and work to end the plight of the downtrodden and all of humanity in general; use your talents and actions to try and move society forward. It's quite clear that an inert mass of people won't propagate change- as Margaret Meade, I believe, once said, a small minority of individuals is most often what causes change in society (ie. the abolitionists in antebellum America). Individualism does not imply narcissism in this case.

Nay, it implies breaking away from the authoritarian grasp of the state in order to help advance society and those that have been hurt by unfettered market capitalism. It means to go against the opinion of the masses when you believe they're wrong; such as in starting and continuing in a war, and so on. I too believe in selflessness- and direct action. That is the ideal I was trying to explain in my previous post.

I suppose terms such as individualism, patriotrism, nationalism, globalism and selflessness can all actually mean very similar things if you're approaching them from a certain viewpoint. Your idea of indivualism is my idea of globalism, and on a smaller scale, patriotism -- characterized by selflessness and helping society even if it means going against society.