Let me start this topic with a crazy fantasy: suppose that, in the wee hours of some dark night, the evil Sith Lord Darth Erasmussimo were to active his orbiting mind control lasers and laser-surgery every last ounce of patriotism out of the mind of every last American. People would wake up the next morning with no more sense of emotional attachment to America than they already have for their home state, county, or city. Would America go to the dogs?

Consider the benefits of such an action: no more silly arguments over the flag; no more fighting over the pledge of allegiance; no more impugning the patriotism of those with whom we disagree. Clearly, these effects would make America a nicer place to live.

On the other hand, we would probably see a drop in military recruiting. After all, when you stack a military job next to civilian jobs, and take away the sense of patriotism, it looks a lot worse, especially because it could never meet OSHA requirements.

Other than that, however, it's difficult to see how this nation would suffer from a loss of patriotism. It would lead to massive loss of employment in the fireworks industry -- but that would be counterbalanced by a reduction in fires. Besides, how much of our fireworks are made in China?

Which brings me to a deeper point: a number of pundits have observed that the increasing economic integration of the world is making the old concept of the nation-state obsolete. If at some point in the not-so-distant future, we are all buying cheese from China, shoes from Sri Lanka, computers from Columbia, and jeans from Germany, nationalism starts to look a little, well, pointless.

Hence, the question for debate is:

Does patriotism confer upon us a net benefit or a net loss?

and its immediate followup:

What are the specific benefits and costs of patriotism?

Edited to add: I intend this to be a sober discussion of a serious sociological issue, which should be discussable without heat. If you are too emotionally attached to the concept of patriotism to discuss this calmly, please stay away!

Does patriotism confer upon us a net benefit or a net loss?

You seem to be implying that the benefits or detractors of patriotism are embodied in economics. On some levels this may come into play, but for your average citizen who is not an economist nor one who ponders the far reaching effects of globalization, economic integration does not define patriotism.
For most, I would surmise that patriotism is centered on rights and freedoms. No matter how globally linked we become when we buy consumer goods, there are still nation-states (and entities such as the UN) that do not share our concepts of individual rights, property rights, free market system, and philosophies of home and self defense.

Patriotism, when taken and perverted into fascism, which I don't believe we're even close to in the US, can be detrimental to the nation. But so can the reverse, when you include the example of military recruitment declining.

But I don't agree that a total loss in patriotic sentiment would lead to America become anymore of a nicer place to live. After all, pundits, politicians and citizens fight far more boisterously over gay marriage, taxes, gun rights and Social Security.

Very well put question Erasmussimo - I will attempt to take a stab at this one, considering myself a patriot and all LOL



Does patriotism confer upon us a net benefit or a net loss?What are the specific benefits and costs of patriotism?


Very difficult question to answer- because there is no precedent for lack of patriotism-throughout history, the main basis of patriotism is to have some emotional attachment to your (for lack of a better word) "area" - whether it be the land itself or the particular concept of goverment that you fall under, in order to protect that land/goverment from foriegn invaders.

Sooo- I think, in a perfect world where know one wants to take what you have through force, patriotism would be a net loss, because it would limit your mobility based on emotional attachment to the land/goverment instead of a logical pros/con list of reasons you might do better elsewhere.

Though, in reality, I believe it is a net gain due to banding together for protection. I don't think patriotism is the PRIME reason for military recruitment these days- I think there are a variety of other reasons- but it factors in there still. There is a sense of honor for "serving my country"- even when that country is terribly wrong, and even the bad guy, in a conflict. German soldiers served proudly in WW2 even though they served a horrible goverment due to thier patriotism, and some in the US military serve knowing we are wrong in Iraq, but it does not lesson thier service in any way, or thier honor for serving thier country, unless they themselves are part of the atrocities.

But that magic laser beam of anti-patriotism would also have to include anti-taking what others have by force for there to be a net gain IMO

DTOM, I must have over-emphasized the economic aspect, because I don't think that's the only way to judge it. It's one of the easier ways, but there are others. Basically, patriotism serves as a kind of "energizer" that motivates people to make greater sacrifices for the common good. But what are the benefits of that energizing? Is it always channeled in beneficial directions? We know it can sometimes be channeled in harmful directions -- how significant is this factor? I agree that we needn't worry about something like Nazi Germany, with people singing an American version of "Deutschland Uber Alles". But does patriotism among the overenthusiastic lead to dangerous actions? How much of our reaction to 9/11 was cogent, reasoned self-defense and how much of it was outraged patriotism? Did we overreact because of patriotism? I think that patriotism did play a negative role, clouding our judgment. I won't say that it was the only factor. Surely fear played a large role in such actions as the Patriot Act. And I am not basing my case on any assumptions that our subsequent policies were wrong. Rather, I am wondering out loud whether, to some extent, our sense of patriotism raised the temperature of our collective temperament, leading perhaps to some degree of intemperance in our responses.

For example, there are now a small number of people declaring with much bravura that we should invade Iran. From a sober military point of view, this seems to me to be beyond our military capabilities just now (although we could sure shoot them up with airstrikes). To what extent is this foolish bravado founded in misplaced patriotism, a kind of "Don't mess with the USA!" belligerence? Perhaps it's not patriotism that lies at the heart of such foolishness. What do you think?


I disagree that there has always been something like patriotism. There were surely times of greater patriotism and lesser patriotism. The Greek city-states were drenched in patriotism, and they were constantly at war with each other. The early Romans were perhaps the greatest patriots of all time, and some of the finest and noblest tales of patriotic self-sacrifice come from them. When Scaevola stuck his hand into the fire to demonstrate just how determined Romans were, well, that was one of the most moving demonstrations of patriotism in history.

But there wasn't any patriotism in Europe between the fall of the Roman empire and the French Revolution. Why should anybody feel warm cuddly feelings for a bunch of aristocratic oppressors? There were a few rare cases -- Joan of Arc, for example -- but for the most part people got more excited about class issues (witness the many peasant revolts) or religious issues (witness the Crusades or Jan Hus or the Anabaptists).

Let's also distinguish clearly between patriotism and self-defense. You don't need to be a patriot to protect yourself -- just a pragmatist.

I am probably infamous around here as the American citizen with the least feeling of patriotism. That doesn't mean I hate the USA. Looking at the world with as much information as I can find, the United States is definitely somewhere in the Top Ten places to live on this sad planet. I feel very lucky to have been born here. However, I would feel the same kind of luck if I were born in Canada or Australia or New Zealand or in many European nations, or elsewhere in what we might loosely call the Free World.

Despite the fact that I acknowledge the many important advantages to being an American citizen rather than, for example, a North Korean citizen, I have never felt the swelling of emotion that is supposed to go along with pride in one's homeland. I can certainly understand patriotism for one's adopted nation in one who has struggled to immigrate to it, but the patriotism of the native-born citizen is not something I understand.

Sir Walter Scott to the contrary:



-- Canto Sixth of The Lay of the Last Minstrel

Which is how most Americans probably feel about my lack of patriotism.

Flags and patriotic songs and the like are alien to me, just as I have never felt any "school spirit" or loyalty to any sports team.

Advantages to patriotism: It makes people feel good. It may inspire them to actions that help their fellow citizens.

Disadvantages to patriotism: It may inspire people to do things that harm citizens of other nations.

I hope that someday the notion of "nations" will seem as quaint as the notion of "the divine right of kings," and that the only form of patriotism will be loyalty to the planet and its inhabitants.

Bingo! Yes, I think you have put your finger on something important here. Yes, it does make people feel good, but it also diminishes the humanity of foreigners. Recall the terminology so often used to describe citizens of other nations: "nips", "slant-eyes", "wops", "frogs", "krauts", "reds", "ragheads" -- the list of distasteful terms such as this goes on and on. Is this not the dark side of patriotism? This existence of this dark side does not deny the bright side of patriotism, but neither should it be ignored. Or am I off the mark? Is the dehumanization of foreigners unrelated to patriotism?

Another factor that occurred to me: patriotism is correlated with democracy. Who were the greatest patriots of classical times? The Greeks and the Romans, both practioners of democracy. Then there are Americans and French, also early democrats and also great believers in patriotism. The relationship is not absolute, but there's definitely a connection between democracy and patriotism.

I basically agree with these characterizations of patriotism. If the workers of Germany, Britain, France, and Russia had refused to kill each other for absurd “patriotic” reasons in WWI, the world would be a much better place. Similar misguided patriotism has allowed Bush to manipulate the American public into a pre-emptive war. However, I recognize the importance of historical examples where patriotic motivation has been critical in resisting terrible evil. The examples of the British people in the Battle of Britain and that of the Russian people in resisting the German invasion, even under a brutal dictator, come to mind.

I suppose the real distinction between "good" patriotism and "bad" patriotism is the degree of reason exercised in submitting to its dictates.

Does patriotism confer upon us a net benefit or a net loss?

What are the specific benefits and costs of patriotism?

It is NOT patriotic to question someone's patriotism when they question the government. It is actually "anti-patriotic" in my opinion, as it flies in the face of our founding father's, our constitution and our history. You can argue with someone's positions, but to question their loyalty to their country / community simply because they think differently then you do is way over the line and not a patriotic way to act, not even remotely.

The debate over issues like burning the flag has less to do about patriotism and more to do about older generations resisting change IMHO. We see this in so many issues. My Grandmother was not racist, she could care less what the color of someone skin was, her big concern was whether or not they avoided that dark devil liquor and if they went to church every Sunday. But she continued to use the word "colored" until she left this world. Older people have a hard time accepting social change. I know alot of men, including myself who have served this country in times of war, and had a hard time dealing with this issue. When you have risked your life under that flag, it becomes something more to you. However, I know many, like myself that might find the burning of the flag to be disgusting, but would fight for a persons right to do it. They would equally fight for the right of those that oppose such actions to be able to voice that opposition.

So, to me, the "losses" being associated to patriotism here really are misplaced.

In this country most individuals are becoming more and more of an personal isolationist. They go to work, and come home. Once home they only seem to come out to cut the lawn. They are staying in the house with the cable, the high speed internet, the games, the rec room, etc rather then going out and socializing with the neighbors or the community. As a result, we have less and less that bonds us together as a people and a nation. Take away the concepts of national pride, national identity that embody true patriotism and we give people even less of a reason to work together. Patriotism is nothing but a national extension of the way we feel about our school, our town, etc. Loosing TRUE patriotism would promote individual isolationism even farther. As we loose more and more of our sense of community, it become easier and easier to say "that's their problem, not mine" when a neighbor is struggling with a new appliance, or an elderly women can't get her trash out. So I see the loss of patriotism as a net loss for the country.

There are not negatives to Patriotism. Some people commit negative acts and claim it to be patriotism, but they are mistaken. Some accuse others of not being patriotic because of a particular viewpoint. Well, the really should review that very first item in the Bill of Rights.

I think that's an important distinction that many fail to grasp. Absence or lackluster patriotism does not equate with hatred of ones country.


I guess I understand it a little more. I would certainly argue it isn't innate. I think it comes initially from a pride of what our country has accomplished. I think this analogy has been used before, but I believe the beginning of it is very much childlike. We look at America as a great parent, bordering on hero status (much like my father was to me at one point in my life). Its ills are pulled behind closed doors or shrouded from our view and thus we don't consider it.

Eventually that understanding matures (for some). We look closer at America's history and we come to realize that not all of our progress should be considered worthy of unfettered pride. Slavery, genocide, civil war, and other events checker our history that shouldn't eliminate that pride, but rather it should refine it. We grow from that child like reverence to that of an adult, looking at America actually in reverse, as a 220+ year old child. As civilizations go, America in comparison is actually quite young, so the analogy is even more fitting.

As a parent of a small child, you love it, you care for it, you scold it when its wrong, you encourage it when it fails. As parents you always push it to do better, because you know it can. Scolding America when it is wrong doesn't eliminate our love of it. On the contrary, it shows we love it because we expect better of it. That doesn't always make the parent right, but in unquestionably doesn't mean the parent hates the child.

I think you summarized the potential of patriotism very well, Victoria. I would expound upon it further to add a common condition that seems to determine when it is used for good or ill. When patriotism is the sole reason for doing something, I would posit that is when it has the greatest potential to do harm. When patriotism is at the end of a list of reasons for accomplishing something, it has far better potential for helping others.

Doc

Very good point. We have to have a military capability; that military will appeal to patriotism; military service promotes feelings of patriotism; those feelings can't be turned off upon departure from the service. So we have to recognize that there will always be a large number of ex-military who quite naturally and justifiably retain strong patriotic feelings.


I think we can draw a distinction between community spirit and patriotism. Community spirit usually leads to constructive acts: volunteer activity to help out the community. Patriotism seldom leads to constructive acts, not because of any hypocrisy on the part of patriots, but because it's so difficult for one person to contribute to the good of the nation (as opposed to the good of the community). I can volunteer to be a school crossing guard, to help clean up the park, to bring friendly dogs to visit kids at the hospital, to help out at the library sale, and so on. But it's not as if I can volunteer to polish a tank, or help out at the local Federal building.

Moreover, it's pretty hard to imagine a dark side to community spirit. "Let's all get those bastards in the neighboring town!" seems like an unlikely battle cry. "My only regret is that I have but one life to give for Akron, Ohio!" doesn't have the same kind of panache, does it? Can you imagine anybody signing "Albuquerque uber alles"? "God save the County Supervisors"? "Okechobee Rules the Swamp"? Or perhaps "The Marseillaise" adapted for Okeefenokee? Or a bumper sticker proclaiming "Chattanooga -- love it or leave it!" How about "Vive la District of Columbia!"

Well, that depends on how you look at it. There are sites like: Citizen Corps that are funded by the national government because helping in the local community does help the nation as a whole.

As for the dark side of community spirit. You obviously have not lived in an area with intense rivalries. Kids from One High School vandalizing another because of their "School Spirit", People in one part of town having derogatory names for people in another part of town (Like those in the St. Louis Area who call those from Lemay, a town in the southern part of St. Louis county "hoosiers"), and who think those of another community are beneath them (To the point that they might not hire someone from that area, or donate to a charity that helps people in that area, etc.).

Sometimes this becomes political. For example, decades ago, the people living in St. Louis City got tired of having some many of their tax dollars going to programs supporting those rural and backwards farmers and communities. As a result, St. Louis voted overwhelmingly to become independent of the county. Of course actions like this can backfire. I the St. Louis case, advance to the present day and we find that all of the revenue and success is now in the county and the city is struggling because receives no money from the county it choose to leave (though for the good of the county, money is sometimes granted to the city to support certain projects, like a stadium, the airport, the art district, etc).

The problem appears to me that when you think of community spirit, you automatically assume a positive, and when you think of national patriotism you automatically assume a negative. I am not trying to pick on or indict you Erasmussimo, but both of these concepts are neither always negative or positive. It is how these feelings are used or abused that makes them a plus or a minus, not the feelings themselves.

Also, I am quite sure there are places who have used "love it or leave it" slogans for their towns over one issue or another.

It depends on how the patriotism manifests itself. There is a benefit in people being prepared to act on behalf of their nation, for in doing so they join together to look after their common interests.

At the same time, patrotism, like any other powerful emotion, can, and is, used by the unscrupulous to subvert people to act in certain ways.

I do not accept there is anything patriotic in simply waving a flag or making politically motivated statements. I believe that patriotism can only be measured in such actions as voting, acting responsibly when abroad, helping other people by means of volunteer work, acting responsibly on behalf the state and taking on a job that serves the state, and thus the people who make up the state.

Simply wearing a uniform or being sent to fight in a war doesn't qualify in my opinion. Its what you do whilst you are wering the uniform or fighting that matters. Any individual wearing the uniform of his/her nations armed forces can do far more damage to their nation than one is not wearing the uniform.

Ultimately I believe patriotism is beneficial only if it undertaken with a sense of responsibility, perspective and respect for the laws of the state. That flag waving and wearing symbols or uniforms carries a real danger of misuse if the responsibility to the laws of the state are disregarded in the name of convenience.

If abused, patriotism is very dangerous because, like religion, it can be used as an excuse for any terrible action that may serve individuals rather than the state and the people who are the state.

Patriotism is not easy to define anymore. The patriotism of my grandfather’s day doesn’t exist any longer and I think it’s a better thing. We should constantly question and test our leaders, and if their response is some silly “cause its good for America”—we should get nervous and question some more.

During 9/11 you saw our patriotism loud and clear. We rushed to the aid of our fallen and readied ourselves to retaliate against those who hurt us. We haven’t gotten them yet-but hopefully we will someday.

When someone goes to fight for their rights as an American we see patriotism. The ways we express it are as many and as varied as we are as a people. How I was raised to believe in it is different than someone in Jersey or Texas. We may share many of the same threads but it is different for each of us—and I think that makes us stronger as a people. Not just the variations but the fact we respect each others views.



I disagree with OverlandSailor here. I think the individual is America’s greatest result. We are after all a nation of individuals and if you cannot convince people to participate freely then the result is worthless. Forced sense of community leads to resentment. This eventually brings the community down. I am an American by birth but I am an American also by choice. This country represents what I think best in mankind. I find it more impressive to hear accounts of patriotism from immigrants than homeborn Americans. To pledge allegiance to a place because of its ideals-- instead of just “cause I was born an American” and that’s how one was raised -- carries a much greater weight for me. Doing something because you were trained to means little—you are merely responding in a reinforced fashion to stimulus.
To freely and passionately give one’s devotion to one’s home far outstrips the other.
In fact I would make citizenship something one achieves upon adulthood—regardless of where one was born. At around 16 you go and test and make an active choice to be an American. It doesn’t have to be a massive test but should require that one puts in some effort. The ceremony itself should have a sense of gravity to it and be treated as a milestone in life. Maybe make it a basic requirement to vote and/or receive any benefits of being American.

Does patriotism confer upon us a net benefit or a net loss?
It confers a benefit. We are stronger for it.


What are the specific benefits and costs of patriotism?
The benefits are that we are more likely to fight to maintain the integrity of our beliefs. We will expect that the responsibilities that maintain our beliefs are to be honored.

Why am I not surprised to see Nazi comparisons in a debate on American patriotism. And why wasn't there a warning or requirement that all those tired of seeing Hitler, Nazis and America being lumped together told to stay away?

I have lived in several nations and a few I would say were/are far more patriotic than America/Americans.

I have absolutely no issue with patriotism or public, private or communal displays of it. To me..a national identity is very normal. I distrust those who claim to be without. How can anyone be absolved from their cultural or national identity?

I think much of how a nation's patriotic identity evolves has a lot to do with the nation's identity (obviously) and the nation's predominant or traditional culture to begin with. Which are ultimately set by history, location, land structure, climate and other environmental conditions.
Sure I will be the first to recognize the similarities of American culture to that of German culture.. just let it be noted that the Germans do in fact have a culture, history and national identity that does not involve the Nazis or Hitler. Yet I also am more than aware that the national identity and cultural conditions of those in Germany to those in the US differ greatly too.
I feel the cultural conditions that gave rise to Nazism in Germany are not present in America.

I personally believe nationalism is a far greater danger to a society than patriotism. Yes there is a difference. If you have lived in Europe you would be more than aware of this.

I don't believe that patriotism is at all exclusive to democracy.

I somewhat agree with Christopher's take on this but I take it a little further than he did. I would argue that individualism or the concept and ideal of the importance of the individual and individual rights is one of the core concepts or ideals of America's national identity..this is a liberal nation...based on liberal ideals. Thus I would argue that an American patriot holds the ideals of the individual sacred and foremost. I believe that challenging the government, testing the system and personally and individually involving ourselves with our leaders has always been right from conception one of the fundamentals of America's national identity. To say.. "I am an American patriot" Is to say I love, cherish and believe in this nation. How this nation is identified in our minds..our own perception of national identity..is what we value and feel devotion to. In America that would be...Life, liberty, equality, freedom, pursuit of happiness etc. ...all without question very individual ideals.

Communistic patriotism espouses very different ideals or identifies much different principles as having value for the nation as a whole. Communist ideals frame themselves around the community, the classes, revolution..all without question very organized or group minded ideals.

Nationalistic patriotism focuses on the need or the overall importance of the nation/state to all else and even goes so far as to give ownership to this nation and it's identity to a select group or what they like to call...nationalists. Nationalism is very divisive in nature, exclusive and essentially racist. It espouses the ideals and identifies it's self with concepts of the state, race, ethnicity and culture.

I do feel that America does experience or idealizes civic nationalism tho. I just have very little fear of such a form of nationalism as it is what I believe to be a result of the democratic process.

How can you make such a claim? That is to me..a European..crazy. The Swiss will celebrate on National Day this year over 700 yrs of statehood.
Jerusalem which we all sang at me nan's funeral is the quintessential patriot's song. Rule Britannia..that certainly was penned in this period you claim to be the dark ages of patriotism.
You have all these little nations pushed up on to one another..constantly warring, invading and pillaging each other how would patriotism not be present? In fact I believe patriotic feelings get people in Europe so excited and always have that is why we see nationalism become as extreme as it does in Europe.
All you have to do is go to one football match in any city in any European country and you will know full well that patriotism is not something new to the Europeans.
Class issues, religious issues, etc. are indeed things, movements and communities or essentially nations any of us can be "patriotic" of. I don't really feel patriotism is exclusive to a clearly defined nation or government. I think we extend these emotions and devote ourselves to many things other than the nation state. That is why we extend the usage of the word...Muslim nations, Christian state, Secular state, etc.

Oh I almost forgot I wanted to add that I don't believe you need patriotism or a strong sense of patriotic duty among your citizens to man an army..look to North Korea I would imagine people become soldiers because they are hungry. Unless of course those asserting this belief are going to also argue that the Iraqis are joining the military because they feel a strong sense of patritoic duty and not because they just want to feed their families

Erasmussimo, while patriotism surely did wax and wane in different times, and for different cultures, I think CruisingRam does have a good point. Are there any historical examples where a completely non-patriotic society existed, and thrived? I can't think of any. This points to one of two possible scenarios. Either patriotism at its heart does indeed provide a strong benefit, and all those societies without it perished, or patriotism is simply an innate human need, and simply can't be removed.

In either case, I think it might be important for this debate to define 'patriotism'. What exactly is it? Does it refer to a location, or a concept? A society, a culture, or a geographic area? The pros and cons could be quite different depending on how one defines the word.



Hmmmm...I would hardly think the state that existed during the Middle Ages presents a strong case for the benefits on non-patriotism, wouldn't you agree? Which goes to my initial point....are there any examples in history of a non-patriotic society thriving? I think this is crucial to the debate.

Patriotism for a nation-state is a lot like racism. It is a divisor. It is something which depends on feeling that one's particular nation is better than all the others. Of course, one can make a good case supporting the idea that governments which support freedom and human rights are superior to other forms of government. That said, the Earth is populated by humans, not by Americans or Angolans or Indians. There may be better or worse governments, but there are not better and worse people.

I am a patriot to the ideals of justice, human rights, and kindness. I am a patriot to the meta-nation of humanity, or rather, of sentiency. I love living in the U.S. for a lot of reasons. But I don't think Americans are any better or are any different than anyone else on the planet.

On the whole, patriotism to the nation-state is by far a net loss. If everyone were first and foremost patriotic to the human race, and to the ideals of justice and compassion, we would avoid much conflict. And it is my belief that the way the U.S. was constructed was to enable us to be patriotic to higher principles; therefor the "true" American is not the one who says "my country, right or wrong." Rather it is the person who stands up and shouts when those principles are being subverted. Because we purportedly hold human rights as paramount, the true American is the person marching in the streets in protest of war and injustice.

At its base, patriotism is also rather silly - with the exception of immigrants, we are only Americans through random chance. It just happens to be where we were born.

LordHelmet believes that we would solve much conflict if we were to rid ourselves of the concept of "race." How true, And how much more conflict would we be rid of if we were to rid ourselves of the concept of nations.

I am not saying we don't still try and make changes for the better in the world. There are governments which badly need reform. Indeed, our allegiance to humanity would make us more involved in achieving justice in all nations. However, our allegiance to humanity would also make us loath to force those changes through warfare. In Vietnam we killed over a million civilians. In Iraq, somewhere around 100,000 or more. (I'm not just picking on us - whoever gets into wars kills innocent people) If our loyalty is to compassion and justice first, before nation or government, we would not enter into situations where this occurs.

This is assuming that this would be the 'new order' that would replace patriotism. That is far from a given. Taken at the surface, one would first assume, IMHO, that if patriotism were gone, it wouldn't necessarily be replaced by anything at all. I would think that such a state would have a severe disadvantage when faced with a strongly partriotic state. This seems very similar to me to the arguments against agression (maybe the two go together?). I think a non-patriotic state is at a disadvantage when competing with a patriotic one. I think history shows this to be true, quite possibly because throughout history non-patriotic peoples have simply been overrun by patriotic ones. Not that I"m against Quark's world view here...I'm just not sure that removing patriotism is what would get us there.

Hobbes, I agree with you 100%. I think we are talking about this in two different ways. As a pure concept, I think patriotism is a negative, weighed against justice, compassion, and human rights. That has nothing to do with whether or not a particular nation would be at an advantage. Of course - a country with a huge army, nuclear weapons, the will (and desire) to use them, and uber-patriotism will have an advantage over a country without those things. I have an advantage over a midget with rickets. But that says nothing about whether one is right or wrong.

I am not even arguing that patriotism has had some hand in bringing about the modern state of the world, good and bad. I am saying that it is a negative as a principle. While it may drive progress, it also drives warfare, bigotry and hatred. And there is no known correlation between even progress and patriotism.

Isn't it time for us to think bigger? Socially we have always evolved as our scope of the world grew. We went from family units to small villages, to towns, to cities, to nations. It seems only logical that the next step in social evolution involves widening our definition of "community" once again - to encompass the entire planet.

I disagree quarkhead. Patriotism is NOT a negative principle. Just like anything in life...its something good that can be corrupted and used for one's own advantage. Patriotism in and of itself is fundamentally a good principe. Its not about 'thinking you're better than anyone else'...its about having pride and respect for your heritage and the roots by which your nation came about. Of course others have their own opinion of patriotism...but thats mine.

I think of it as having pride in one's own family. If you know a family member did something wrong...you try to help them, protect them, and make sure that they are better off than they were before. You wouldn't just give up on them and give them up to the first person that walks by.

Patriotism is about family...its what binds all of us together. Its what tells me that if ever our freedom was threatened that you and I would be side by side defending it.

Patriotism is a wholely subjective term. It sort of like how i can criticize my mother...but if you criticize her it isnt right. I mean...why do people support the baseball team of their city even if it is a losing team? It's because it's their city...it represents their people.

The United States was built on patriotism...it was built on ideals that represented the original colonies...and not that of the British Empire. Patriotism of today reminds us of our past both the good and the bad. And how we have learned and progressed through great strife and hardship.

So in the end its not about 'pledging allegiance' to the country...but more towars allegiance to the ideals this nation was built on and the ideals that have sustained it.

No argument here. In fact, I am most certain that is indeed where we are headed. It's just a question of when (for which I haven't the foggiest idea what the answer would be). I guess the question then is whether or not patriotism did, and does, serve a purpose in getting there.

Still, I think it would benefit this debate greatly to define exactly what patriotism is.

Dictionary.com shows the following:



Hmmm...nothing so bad there, although I would suggest that the term country is only appropriate in modern history, as we are a planet of nation states. Back when there were just villages, I think the term village could be substituted with no loss in definition. But, having love and devotion to your place of origin isn't necessarily a bad thing, anymore than love and devotion to your family is. I would think this doesn't conflict with your world view, Quark....one can love and be devoted to one's place of origin without having any negative connotations towards anyone else's.

Dictionary.com further lists:



Ahhhh...this is different, isn't it? "Willingness to sacrifice for it" is much more specific than devotion....it implies action, whereas the original did not. These are two different definitions, IHMO, especially if you look further at their definition of nationalism.



Now we're really getting more specific. 1 and 2 both imply superiority, whereas the original definition did not. 1 & 2 are also both exclusionary....in that you would have to support your nation over others. I don't think many of us would argue against 3, although once achieved, you're right back to 1 & 2.

I state that these are three distinct definitions. The first only requires love and devotion to your country. The second indicates a willingness to sacrifice for it, while the third then brings on the concept of superiority and desire to place one's nation ahead of others. I think it important to settle on a definition in order to proceed with the debate, since the pros/cons of each of these, their impact on both a nation's people and also the people of other nations would be quite different amongst the three.

quarkhead I really think you need to further elaborate to us all how patriotism is inherently negative.

I am having a very hard time following your argument. It seems when I read it it says to me that only one constant form or existence of patriotism is known and it is war, hatred etc. all the bad stuff. I argued this was nationalism...or even we could claim extreme patriotism.

Yet would you or would you not agree that patriotism is at the core of the belief of the socialist system? Isn't wanting to provide education a patriotic desire? Or to ensure all children can eat? Or have a home or clothes or clean water? Why would we ask our state or even feel we have the right to ask our state to ensure these "basic rights" if we did not feel love and a sense of devotion for all the hundreds of thousands in our community. How is that not patriotism?

I think leder brought about a really good point...family... only I would extend his theory further..if he doesn't mind .. Patriotism which comes from the word patrios (of one's father) ..it is a basic social condition to seek some structure of family or community and I would argue that the nation state has always in one form or another been an extension of the family. Fatherland, mother tongue, homeland. The interesting thing of this is when we consider this in the context of America and American history...most of those in America who placed importance on patriotism or who we personify as our country's greatest patriots did not have the basic element of the word ...patrios..America was not their father's. It was the new world and not one we could claim in ancestry, ethnicity or bloodlines of any sort. So could it be argued that the form of patriotism in America and other new world nations differs greatly from the more nationalistic forms we see in older nation states? And that by nature is more inclusive and is not racially or ethnically derived.

I have read and I will dig to find where..that American patriotism is more based on a promise than it is on a reality.

In regards to the international community aspect..it seems many believe patriotism is anti-globalism. Is it? Can you be a patriot and in favor of globalization?

You're right, I think I goofed in not defining the term. We already are seeing a variety of differing points of view based on different definitions of the term. So I'll take a stab at an extended definition plus characterization, fully expecting others to differ with aspects of my definition.

The short version is this: patriotism is an emotional exaltation of the nation into which one was born. I define nation here as a group sharing a common language, common history, and a great many common customs. Patriotism is distinguishable from kinship loyalties, which go only as far as one's extended family -- a couple of hundred people, tops. Patriotism is also distinguishable from community loyalties. I'll postulate a fuzzy connection between patriotism and military endeavor; an army serves the same entity to which one assigns his patriotism. If your group has an army, then your patriotism is directed toward the same group that the army fights for. You can feel patriotism for a group including many people whom you've never met.

I can't see much difference between patriotism and nationalism. Some people claim that the two are distinct, but I'd like to hear the basis for the distinction.

One illuminating attribute of patriotism within a society is the absence of civil war. If a large group of people can get along without killing each other, then they're probably pretty patriotic. On that basis, the middle ages come out pretty unpatriotic -- everybody was out to get everybody else!

We also have to be careful with including group rivalry into patriotism. One of Erasmus' books refers to the way in which Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Germans, Italians, and Dutch all held the other nationalities in some contempt. Dutch were dour and lacking in joy; French were duplicitous; Germans were boastful; English were uncouth; Italians were materialistic; and Spaniards were belligerent. So they all said about each other. But I don't regard these feelings as patriotism; this is closer to xenophobia than patriotism.


Hmm, good question, and there are no really clear answers here. Certainly the Romans were strong on any scale of patriotism, and they were pretty successful. By contrast, the Celtic peoples never developed any loyalties beyond their immediate tribal loyalties -- and look what the Romans did to the Celts. On the third hand, consider how the Celtic peoples swept out of central Europe in the early Iron Age and tore up much of Europe -- without any patriotism.

I'd argue that Chinese civilization never developed a strong sense of patriotism. Yes, there was the Son of Heaven and all that religious-monarchy stuff -- but Chinese lived in a strict hierarchy that never appealed to their sense of loyalty to their culture. Perhaps this is because the notion of other cultures never quite impinged upon Chinese civilization, except in those cases when other cultures (Mongols, Manchus, and Europeans) moved in and took over. Hard to say.

England had plenty of internal wars right up until the Restoration, so I'd say that patriotism was pretty weak in England until the late 17th century. Yet look at England during the Elizabethan age -- that was a pretty successful time, don't you think?

Contrast this with France, which, for all its size, never could develop any genuine patriotism. The French were busy killing each other, rebelling against the king, and so forth right up to the French Revolution. And then all of a sudden there was this unified nation and they promptly set up an empire. Impressive, yes; good, no.

All in all, I'd say that patriotism was a positive force in overcoming the fissiparous tendencies in so many nation-states. However, it merely transferred the violence from smaller groups to larger groups. Wars became less frequent but larger and more destructive.


Well, I suppose I could point to the Mongols, whose loyalty lay to military success, not any notion of nation. Indeed, they never had any sense of what constituted "Mongolia". They were nomads. But Mongolian military success can be countered by Napoleonic military success or, for that matter, Nazi Germany's initial military successes.

The problem here is, there aren't many societies we can point to as worthy of admiration. If we think in terms of "golden ages", then we have Greece in the fourth century BCE, which was really tricky, because they had all these intense intercity wars, but they also had enough patriotism to band together to beat back the Persians. We can point to early Rome and its patriotism, and that was certainly a clear connection between patriotism and success. But what about Florence during the Renaissance? No patriotism there, yet this city was the focal point of one of the golden ages of humankind.

Looking at the other end of the scale, there are a number of cases of modern nations using patriotism to perpetrate great crimes. Yes, the Nazis are the premier example here, but don't forget World War I, the ultimate case of patriotism gone mad.

On to some minor points:


Well, then, you wouldn't trust either Socrates or Erasmus, because Socrates is famous for saying, "I am a citizen of the whole world" and Erasmus enthusiastically echoed Socrates in his contempt for loyalty to anything less than all of humanity.


Yes, the Swiss Confederation got its start early. But remember, the Swiss were capable of very nasty infighting for a while. Don't forget that ugly battle between Zurich and Calvinist Geneva in, what, 1530? The enthusiasm with which the two sides descrated each other's dead didn't show a whole lot of patriotism.


I don't know when "Rule Brittania" was written, but I doubt that it was written before the Enlightenment, because Britannia most definitely did not rule the waves until the 18th century.

I think we are bridging two different ideas of the meaning of "patriotism".

There is the Confucian version which is patriarchal at its core. The father is lord of the home, the governor is lord of the region, the emperor is lord of the land. Whether dealing with the micro-family or the macro-family the relationship is the same. You are loyal to family because you share blood, ideas, beliefs and customs.....likewise for the other citizens of your country.


The other version is more concrete. It is more closely tied to home, property and prosperity. When we are proud of our successes as a community we can be said to be patriotic. This sort of patriotism is more local and "attached to the land".
When a farmer in the midwest displays an American flag on a granary silo it is a symbol (if I remember correctly) that the silo is bought and paid for. It is a symbol of success..essentially an announcement that "this society has worked for me and I'm proud of that"

I think it is quite possible to have one, both or none of these. If your society brings you nothing but ill you will have difficulty being proud of it. However, you may still have a close knit, small community that has managed to survive a miserable situaion. Or you may, in times of darkness, look to your heritage as a reminder that good times can come again for your people. One need only look at the complex situations with the civil wars and genocides in Africa in order to see examples of all of these.

I tend to see patriotism as "magnified team spirit". When an individual is part of something that is much greater than theirself they will be swept up by it. This is a powerful and natural emotion in my opinion.

I find it strange though, that patriotism acts somewhat like a tough virus. When the opportunity for patriotic pride emerges there is always a great outpouring of the emotion. However when there is an equally powerful reason to doubt one's nation or heritage it just goes into hiding. Patriotism never seems to suffer a loss, at worst it stays as strong but only goes dormant.

I'm still not sure if this is testimony to human spirit or human pig-headedness.

In the end I. too, believe that patiotism (the Confucian kind) is being out-moded.
Biologists are learning that "race" doesn't really exist. So must our perceptions of ourselves (as members of a race) fade..
As long as we have a variety of people who measure success in different ways we will have local patriotic pride. There will always be people (even under the worst kind of oppression) who will find a way to thrive within their community and be proud of it. But patriotic pride in a nation? I don't even think all Americans have the same perception of our country. How can we have the same patriotic pride in it?

American Patriotism confers upon us a net benefit. If one does not feel "pride" associated with our nation, then one would not be willing to defend it, protect it's core principles, and perpetuate it. The real issue is not "patriotism", but rather what is the "cost" of anti-patriotism; a belief system that is widespread among the political "left".

American Patriotism, and Nationalism, are seen by them as dysfunctions, not healthy attitudes that guarantee the survival of our nation and our way of life. I believe that this belief comes from the tenet that "patriotism" leads to war and aggression against other nations. This, of course, is a simplistic view awash in moral relativism and the stereotypes inherent in such a broad brush view.

All "patriotism" is not created equally. Strong pride in a nation that values freedom, democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law, and a limited government is one thing. Patriotism when it is used to support a terrorist regime, or a government with a totalitarian belief system is quite another. An American Patriot and a Taliban patriot are not the same thing at all.

The cost of anti-American-Patriotism is putting our nation, our culture, and our freedoms at risk. The premise of "anti-patriots" seems to be that patriotism is a "zero sum" game. In other words, one cannot feel pride in our country without looking down at someone else's.

That's not the case at all. America has a lot to be proud of. There is nothing wrong with displaying that pride through symbols of "patriotism".

Well then perhaps I just distrust your interpretation of his meaning. If Socrates can apply a concept like citizenry to the world or international community I can't see why we can't do the same for patriotism.


Got an early start is a wee bit of an understatement I think..but it was only five hundred years early. Also you are misrepresenting this conflict it was not between Zürichers and Calvinists (Zürich inspired Calvin!) It was solely theologically based...it was between protestants and catholics and I think this "war" lasted like a month. I have been to the Church Zwingli died for...who happened to be a follower of your man Erasmus. Geneva was not a canton till much later...it was the last to join. Regardless there are many civil wars throughout Swiss history.

Yet going by this logic of denouncing patriotism then the Nazis were not acting on patriotism. The Americans are not patriots because they have murdered one another too. Or even Palestinians who murder fellow Jewish citizens are to be considered unpatriotic or not acting out of patriotism either.
I personally can't accept such logic..I feel these incidents are results not of a lack of patriotic duty but a reinterpretation of it..or a reinvented state that they feel patriotic to.


The Enlightenment was not your definer it was the French Revolution and Rule Britannia was written before the French started chopping off heads in the name of country, state and nation. Even so if you wish to change your thesis that is fine...Britain..that would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain was first invented or created and began her statehood in 1536. (annex. of Wales} That is long before the French revolted and even before the period of time many define as the Enlightenment. Or we could look to France's incorporation of Brittany, or Basque Country. Why for the most part were these consolidations of culture and identity successful?

I take it that you do not approve of patriotism to one's homeland; you approve only of emotional attachment to the principles upon which a government is based. In this we agree. As I stated elsewhere, I have no problem with a pledge of allegiance to the Constitution, but I do object to a pledge of allegiance to the flag, as it is merely a symbolic middleman. I take it you agree here?

But there's another problem here. You cite a Taliban patriot, not an Afghan patriot or a Pakistani patriot. Yet Taliban patriotism, if such there be, would be directed toward a set of ideas, not a nation-state. So your distinction is based on what you consider to be good ideas as opposed to bad ideas.

A further problem here is that you are operating outside the definition of patriotism that I offered, which centered on the notion of attachment to the nation-state. Would you care to offer the definition of patriotism that you are relying on?

bucket, you and I seem to be quibbling over fine points. I think that my broad generalization that there wasn't much in the way of patriotism between the fall of the Roman Empire and the French Revolution is pretty sound. You have offered some good exceptions, but these are pretty small in the overall scheme of European history. Won't you agree that patriotism seems to be correlated with democracy or at least the population's sense of participation in the national policy?

Does patriotism confer upon us a net benefit or a net loss?

That depends (as always) on how the natural emotion of patriotism is manipulated, exploited, encouraged, or disparaged.

Patriotism can be manipulated toward constructive ends within a nation, the ask-not-what-your-country-can-do-for-you-but-what-you-can-do-for-your-country kind of sentiment. This is how great nations get built.

Patriotism can also be exploited to support wars of conquest, and this too is how great nations get built. Some have been more successful than others on this level, and the US had its share of disputes along the way that led to expansion.

So for building great nations, patriotism works to the net benefit, at least up until the world wars. These two conflicts (actually the same one) demonstrated that wars of conquest don't work any longer.

Since then, the USSR has split up, and we've had the wars over the north and south parts of countries. Patriotism certainly played a role in those wars, but because there was no gain for the US, one was arbitrated and the other lost. Well, I suppose S. Korea became a net gain, and Vietnam is again a trading partner. From the point of trade, net gain. From the point of lots of war deaths and upheaval state side, loss.

From that evolved the notion of peace-keeping and keeping out-of-line tyrants in check. From that came Afghanistan and a war of self-defense, and from that Iraq.

From here, we go to the next question.

What are the specific benefits and costs of patriotism?

The obvious benefit of patriotism is that when the country is attacked, the people line up behind the President with 100% support, trusting that the President will do only what is good for the country and necessary for the country's defense.

The obvious costs are lives and resources. War is expensive on both counts.

We were manipulated into Iraq, and our sense of patriotism was exploited. Nothing new about that. This has happened in all our wars, and fundamentally all wars ever for whatever country.

A less obvious benefit/cost of patriotism comes politically. War benefitted Washington and Lincoln. It worked well enough for both Roosevelts and Truman. However, war didn't help Johnson or Nixon, and the Carter military attempt at getting hostages back was a disaster. Reagan was more successful with shady deals that avoided war, and it actually looked like containing regional skirmishes had become the business of the military.

Well. Then along came a different view of war and its use in foreign policy. Today we understand exactly how the manipulation and exploitation of patriotism was done, and public opinion is changing against President Bush. He's feeling the political cost of war, and part of this cost comes from either a sense of patriotism or a sense of defiled patriotism.

The country is feeling the other costs of war, and the patriotism that was used to hurry us into it. The benefits aren't apparent -- what do we get out of a free Iraq? That's the question in most people's minds these days.

The patriotism has turned away from the military to the domestic agendas being pushed. This isn't looking good for President Bush.

So, patriotism, ungh, what is it good for?

Quite a bit when handled well, nothing if flubbed. Protecting the country seems to still be in effect; it's just that the focus has changed from terror attacks to domestic agendas that look threatening to both citizens and politicians.

In a nutshell, patriotism is a common emotion among a nation's population. It can motivate people to do great and astonishing things. If abused, it can turn these same people against the leadership that did the abuse.

History is shot full of examples where patriots turned against once trusted leadership. This round isn't so different from the last round, except things move more quickly these days.

Well I don't believe we are. You claim nationalism and patriotism are one in the same. I don't feel this is true at all. We disagree on the very basics..the definition of patriotism.


Well I am sorry but I don't agree with this either.

Switzerland is a perfect example..that you dismissed with some theory on civil war or internal state fighting as evidence that patriotism does not exist..haven't quite grasped what it is exactly.
The Swiss were hammered for well over 500 yrs from every which side and the result is one of the MOST patriotic cultures I have ever experienced. What bound this nation and these people who don't speak the same language, don't share the same religion and do have separate and distinct cultures? What made them fight, defend and sacrifice for so long? For what?

I then presented Brittany, Basque Country, Wales, and I can think of more..why not consider The Flemings? Or Portugal? Or Spain? What was the Holy Roman Empire? All of these examples defy the soundness of your very broad and very general claim.


I guess I am just being difficult but no. I already said I felt there was no correlation. I think patriotism is more or less a sense of devotion or love, an emotive response, that is correlated to things we believe in. Religion, political ideals, culture. As said before by Hobbes it isn't an action..just what we believe.
Nationalism is the construct of the state..not men. It is meant to give legitimacy to one singular state or government and to then give ownership of that state's identity to one singular group. It is aggressive in nature as it demands ownership and superiority and it is essentially a tool of the state.

Yes, it appears that we do. When you imply that there was a lot of patriotism in the Holy Roman Empire... well, that really suggests that we are using very different definitions of patriotism. I have already presented mine. What is yours? How does yours differ from mine?

I will just re- post what I have already written...
Class issues, religious issues, etc. are indeed things, movements and communities or essentially nations any of us can be "patriotic" of. I don't really feel patriotism is exclusive to a clearly defined nation or government. I think we extend these emotions and devote ourselves to many things other than the nation state. That is why we extend the usage of the word...Muslim nations, Christian state, Secular state, etc.


I think patriotism is more or less a sense of devotion or love, an emotive response, that is correlated to things we believe in. Religion, political ideals, culture. As said before by Hobbes it isn't an action..just what we believe.

Of course. How an one be patriotic to a "rock" or a "chunk of desert" or a "river"? Homeland is just a place, an inanimate object. Being patriotic is being supportive of a nation's "ideals", core principles, and beliefs.



No, we do NOT agree here. The flag is a symbol that represents the constitution, the declaration of independence, and the ideals and sacrifices of the American nation. You can't differentiate the constitution from the flag. One represents the other.



But of course. Being a "patriot" of Nazi Germany, for example, was hardly something to commend. Neither was being a patriot supporting the defunct Taliban regime.

As I said, all patriotism is not created equally. It's not a matter of moral relativity ("my" good ideas vs bad ideas), it's a matter of what's considered bad and good given the totality of human history. And, in spite of what some may think, history has proven that totalitarian regimes are "bad" while those who respect freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and limited government are "good".

That's why the question "is patriotism good or bad"? is based on a false premise.

Wow! That explains a lot! I apologize for not paying more attention to your original presentation. Yes, by your definition, then everybody in all of history has and ever will be patriotic.

However, your definition differs starkly from dictionary definitions, so I'll ask you for the remainder of this topic to humor me and rely on a more conventional definition. Based on a conventional definition, what benefits and costs does patriotism confer upon society?

I am not being the least bit unconventional and I happen to think I am adhering to the "conventional definition" of the word. As defined in dict.die.net...


Love of what...of country ..what is the "conventional definition" of country?

What is the "conventional definition" of nation?


So exactly how do you explain that your definition of the word is based on the "conventional definition" and mine is not? How is excluding the concepts of religion, language, race, ethnicity correct?

While you were out there looking up definitions, maybe you should have looked up the word conventional



While I followed your reasoning, I think it would be fair to say that patriotism is rarely, if ever used with love and devotion to race, or to religion, or to language, or to ethnicity. Why are these items excluded... I have no idea, but I am pretty certain that to most english speaking people they are indeed excluded, thus it would be unconventional.

On to the debate.

Patriotism is for the fools and the powerful.

I admit I was a fool for quite some time, but just like I escaped the mental shackles of religion, I also figured my way out of the patrioitism box and it feels quite the same... lonely. Few will think outside it and I will simply be outside the mainstream on this issue. But hey I'll try to get my idea across in this debate forum. Though I am rather sure, I will be ineffective, but it should still be fun.

First a country is not an entity to to be loved, cherished or even hated for that matter. What is it one is loving?? The imaginary lines we call borders. The actual soil in America. When someone says country there are three things that come to my mind.

Country = the citizens of the country a.k.a "the people"
Country = the ideals of the country
Country = the government of the country

Anytime the word country is used, someone could be speaking from any one of these point of views.

So what is it we are loving or devoting ourselves to when we say country. The people, ideals, or government... maybe a little of this, sprinkled with a little of that. Let's take them one by one.

People... lets be honest... who here really loves me. There is no exclusive love I have for Americans that I lack for other humans. I love those that are close to me, I show devotion to those I find that I love. We are not devoted to the people, because the people are always divided. If Sean Hannity was to catch a bullet tomorrow, I'd probably have to put thing in perspective to stop myself from smiling. And people with opposing views to my own probably feel the same way about Michael Moore. It is infeasible that we have devotion to the people of America when we are so diverse.

Ideals. Ideals are too intangible and too relative to measure. Two people can be fighting for the same ideal or principle, lets say freedom, and be totally opposed to one another. When Saddam invaded Kuwait he was fighting for freedom. When we attacked Saddam we were fighting for freedom. Pro-Lifers fight for the freedom of the unborn. Pro–Choice people fight for the freedom of a woman to control her body. In the end only people can have ideals so for someone to love this country due to its ideals would be implausible.

Lastly, the government. Funny though, no one will admit it, this is what people love and what they truly show their devotion too. The only problem is…. The government can not be the country. It is the instrument of the people, not the ruler. It is supposed to be a tool of democracy, but we all know it isn’t. We may vote in representatives but we don’t control them. Yet, it is apparent that those that are devoted find themselves devoted to the agendas set forth by the government, not the other way around. Was there a grass root movement to invade Iraq that a majority of our nation pushed upon the government??

If this looks rushed and unfinished that’s because it is.

Well I see it often used towards race or religion and language. For example in the US I have heard of..
The Christian Patriots and the Young Patriots Organization. Both "patriotic" about race.

I also was not aware that this concept of patriotism we were discussing was to be exclusive to English speaking people only. I thought with all the Nazi, Roman, French etc. examples that wasn't the case.

I have a brother who speaks English and he is an extremely devout Christian and he will tell you that he is a patriot of his faith first and foremost. I think that is a fairly common or conventional belief held by many devout Christians, Muslims, Jews etc.

Arab world..what do we mean when we say this? Are we defining a group of people by race and claiming they all share some kind of devotion or love based on their shared race?
Or what are the Mujahideen fighting for?
And why do the Roma have a a flag?

I believe that these ties..religion, race, ethnicity, language have far stronger patriotic bonds then most states or nations. We see this to be true all the time..with the varying accents and dialects throughout nations. Or the nationalistic struggles of certain races within a state. Or unifying or divisions within nations based on religious beliefs.

Bucket Sure you right.
Look, you had to find a definition of a word in a definition of a word in a definition of a word to make your point. And yet you still call it conventional. You took the definition of patriotism (love of country) then took the definition of country, that used the word nation, then went and got the definition of nation that mentioned race, religion, language etc. By all means, if you had to go through all that trouble, would it really be that hard to admit that the way you were using Patriotism was a tad bit, just a smidge, unconventional??

Is there a difference between country and race?? What about country and language? What about country and religion.

Clearly there is!! So why didn't the definition of Patriotism have devotion to religion, race, or language?? Cause that is not how it is commonly used!

And just to throw a monkey wrench in your logic I just noticed.

A country is not a nation , rather it is the territory that a nation occupies. So regardless of what nation is defined as, nation does not equal country.

If A does not = B and B = C then A does not = C
Anyways we are now debating what patriotism is rather than the merits of Patriotism, which is not good.

Contrary to my customary practice, I am deliberately responding to this without reading the rest of the thread. Forgive me if I'm reiterating things that have already been said, but I didn't want my response to be too colored by my peers and I didn't (yet) want to get caught up in any side issues that may have emerged.

I'd like to take Erasmussimo's fantasy as the starting point:

To answer that first question, I think we need a definition of terms. What does "attachment to America" mean? If we are speaking of literal patriotism - devotion to one's patria or fatherland - then I don't think this "attachment" has much value. The love of "This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world... This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this [insert name of country here]" is a concept that has seen better days. Such devotion to a territory is, to my mind, as outmoded and unproductive as devotion to one's king.

And that's where I think "attachment to America" can - and perhaps should - be somewhat different than attachment to Bengal, Belgium, or Belize. Why? Because the United States - and, to an extent, France - has a unique place in history. The United States was the first nation born of the Enlightenment, the first constitutional and democratic republic, the first country dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and that government should be in the hands of the governed. Attachment to the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in America or the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France, to my mind, is somewhat nobler than attachment to a plot of land or a ruling elite.

As a basis for patriotism, those ideals do bear weight, even if the United States has seldom fully lived up to those ideals. The problem with the term "patriotism" is that one man's patriotism is another man's treason - and patriotic fervor can be based on any number of things. The invasion of Iraq is a prime example. Those on both sides feel that their actions are driven by a love of their country and a desire to see the greatest good for its citizens - and both see the opposition's actions as damaging and unpatriotic, even "anti-American".

Blanket patriotism - devotion to "my country, right or wrong" - is never, to my mind, a good thing. This sort of nationalism - attributable to a mere accident of birth - could equally be applied to Nazi soldiers and the French resistance. This class of patriotism is too often contingent on the actions and decisions of those who hold the reigns of power in any given state. Even a country founded on such nobles ideals as the United States can be wrong - and American rulers can invoke "patriotic feelings" to support military aggression, political assassination, arbitrary imprisonment, censorship, and support for foreign dictatorships - and to smear their opponents. To blindly follow such leaders is not patriotism, it is folly.

Speaking as an American, I'm also suspect of "symbolic patriotism". Brandishing flags, singing the national anthem, sporting red-white-and-blue bumper stickers, and getting bald eagle tattoos are all meaningless without supporting the ideals for which those symbols stand. Those symbols do not stand for any individual president or party or act of Congress or act of war - and they do not merely stand for "this blessed plot, this earth, this realm" - they stand for the principles upon which this country was founded and through which it has evolved.

Does patriotism confer upon us a net benefit or a net loss?

If we see patriotism as American idealism, I think it confers a net benefit. If we see it as blind nationalism, a net loss.

What are the specific benefits and costs of patriotism?

The benefits of idealism lead us to support liberty, justice, equality, government by the governed, and basic human rights for all. The costs of nationalism lead us to support the ruling elite who seem to embody the state and to rally behind whatever actions they may decide to take regardless of their relationship to our funding ideals or the damage they may do to individual citizens.

Here is the crux of the matter. Patriotism is a tool that can be used to imply better citizenship than another group in the country. So now the political left is infected with what you call anti-patriotism, not a far step from anti-Americanism. Since I am a liberal democrat and I am leary of nationalism and its effects on people then I am not as good of an American as a strong patriotic conservative with the concept "My country right or wrong". Can one measure love of country? I have a strong sense of love of our country and our country's history and I think it is well expressed in openly discussing the sores and cankers of our past and the many remaining blemishes and blights on our present.

People won't fight if they don't have patriotism? What were the original treasonous "patriots" fighting for? They were fighting to reject their citizenship to a mighty empire over taxation and the threat of loss of property. They fight to preserve the individual liberty and freedom that they felt their imperial government was trying to steal away from them. This is the emphasis on individual freedom, not patriotism. In it is an implication that if the national government misbehaves, a future group should also rise up and reject their country instead of fall to tyranny.

In this who is more patriotic, the soldier who serves his country or himself? Because I would argue that the minutemen fought against their country

to requote


Yet you have done this to my patriotism by painting my views as anti-patriotism. my patriotism strongly criticizes my government and questions whole-heartedly whether it is doing right or wrong. My patriotism could not allow me to be sent overseas to fight in a bad war, but it allows me to hope for the best for our citizens that have been sent to do this. Your patriotism/anti-patriotism model looks down upon my love of American ideals as borderline treasonous.


The remaining quotes are from this below cited post.


Many people are. I place much more emotion toward certain "rocks" in this country than I do to flags. Flags worry me at times, the Golden Gate Bridge never has while I watch the fog roll in. (Of course it has when I am driving in the middle lane before )





Um, yes I can differentiate the Constitution from the flag. The Constitution gives me some written guarantees that protect my individual freedom to live, worship, and express myself as