I am really listening to what you're saying, droop. You said this in your very first post.

And yes, Douglass is referring to people donning patriotism as a "specious and popular garb." The false patriot compared to the true patriot.



Okay. I'm confused now. You're saying Frederick Douglass was ostracized by slaves? Or by the south?



Okay, so you don't do that. But, perhaps that says more about the situation that exists in your family. I'm sure that a family exists that loves one another that thinks, "This is messed up, this is jacked, this is screwy, this needs to change and that needs to change or this family is going to Hell in a handbasket." One could say that about a family one loved.



No, I can't understand it. I see that as close-mindedness. And it is not "simply" rebuking someone or something I love. If it were "simple", I don't think you could call it love.



I don't care how the person next to me defines it. When I make a statement about a "nation," I am using my definition of the word - the definition I learned when I learned the English language. So, when I've defined it for you - and I have - if not clearly enough, I do so again below, then that is the context in which my statements regarding patriotism should be taken. What makes this debate impossible is not that we can't define "nation" or "country", it's that you are unwilling to see another persons definition of those things. You refuse to see Douglass's and you refuse to see mine. So, if you would like a clear definition of "nation", here:

Merriam Webster definition - nation



I couldn't find your definition anywhere in there.

And here is another defintion from the OED:



Again, I couldn't find a definition of nation in the OED that matched yours.

So, perhaps the problem is not with the definition of "nation". It is with your definition of "nation".

Now, if you look at the definition of "government", you will find what you are calling the definition of "nation" or "country":



So, you're very limited view of patriotism is a result of your very limited view of "nation" - which only appears to extend to the nation's government and no further.



Because I don't love my hairdo, I don't love myself?



As a principle or philosophy, I don't think it is.



No, I think he is referring to the "nation" - as that word is actually defined.

Net2007


Funny i think you address this yourself in your next point.



Exactly, at least on the point of caring about the state of the country. Liberals do care about the state of our country, which is why we criticize. I did not say the actions of our country is not worth mentioning to liberals. I said the things we believe we are doing right are not worth mentioning. It is not like the "country" has feelings that we need to think about.

For instance, let's take the War in Iraq. A common complaint you hear from conservatives is "why do liberals(media or persons) only talk about what is going wrong in Iraq. They never report or talk about the successes and things we did good." Well again, if our policies are doing something right, then they do not need to be changed or addressed, so we really don't need to talk or hear about them. It's the things going wrong that need to be changed, thus that is really all that needs to be mentioned.

So is it clearer, now??

Entspeak



Do you believe that a freind to a nation is the same as someone that loves his nation? He could be saying patriotism is a "specious and popular garb" to be worn, in and of itself.



The slave owning south, but he was not ostericized from the abolitionisn movement and community.



Oh, I do it... that's just not all I do. I also pronounce my love... I also encourage. And regardless of their actions, I still love them. Now if you feel the same way about your country... the indoctrination of Patriotism has done exatly it's purpose.




Well, Entspeak, they would say you inability to understand is also close-minded. I do not say that you should agree with their point of veiw, only understand. Understand the mechanisms and thought process behind their views.



First of all... Douglas does not even attempt to define what he means by country. Secondly, you just did it, so you can't say i wouldn't recognize it. I just needed you to do it.



Does it need to be?? Do you disagree that everyone's definition of country is subjective. I could have went to Webster and pulled out a definition, but if you didn't agree that this is your veiw, it would have went no where and meant nothing.



You say you are listening, but I listed multiple things that could be "a country" from borders to people to laws.... read my first post. I will accept your definition while debating you... it is not a problem. You Highlighted

a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government

Which is actually defining a nation not a country. And patriotism is love of the country, but whatevers.



N, but it does mean you do not like your hair. Is a nation some of the people or all of the people?? It is all of the people. not that you could ever seriously call our country "a community"

If a nation is "the people" and you only love "some of the people", how can you say you love "the nation" You can only love "the nation" if you warp the definition to mean "some people of the community", because you do not love all the people.

I'm guessing you don't define your cowlick as you, do you??

huh??? you love the idea of loving everyone. Please explain


So you think Douglas actually loved slave owners, and slave owning communities??

In a related quote - which I also posted earlier, he says:




So, no... that is not what he's saying.



So, it's close-minded to fail to understand the reasonings of the close-minded?



Perhaps he was referring to the dictionary definition that fit the context of his speech - as most people do who speak the English language. Now, according to the OED definition of "nation", he could mean that. According to the M-W definition he could have meant one of two things:



Again, no mention of policies or laws.



Umm... I guess not, but then I could say that I am the President of this Country, if we take President to mean "renter" and Country to mean "storage space" and I was referring to the fact that I rent a storage space.



Yes. I believe that the word country has a definition. Granted, people can and do create their own defintions of words - this is how our language expands. I've no problem with it, but if it falls outside the bounds of the generally accepted definition, it is best explained either through the context of the associated speech or by explicit declaration of a new use of the word. Neither of which does Douglass do. So, it is reasonable to assume - based on the context of his speech and the lack of a specific definition provided by him that would be counter to a generally accepted definition - that it is the generally accepted definition that he is referring to.



Well, my view agrees with the generally accepted definition and, in fact, comes from my understanding of the word as defined, so this line of reasoning means absolutely nothing. If, however, I was using the word incorrectly, you might have a point.



Perhaps you should look up the definition of country then - which I provide above.

For you to argue about the definition of something without knowing the actual definition, pardon me, makes it very difficult to take your argument seriously.


But the cowlick is a part of me, right? Can I scorn a part of me and still love the whole?



Bingo. I don't. But it is a part of me. Just as the government is but a part of the nation (country).



See above.

*edited for clarity.

I will say it again – you know squat about me if you think I agree with “the administration” on everything. In fact, as you know, I was not even in favor of attacking Iraq without knowing exactly where the WMDs were.

Your issue is the pullout. Anyone who does not agree with you that the war is lost, there is no value in being there, and we should just run for the border, Is labeled as a shrill for “the administration” – I beg to differ.




And this effects you how? Are you concerned that calls you might have gotten from Afghanistan were listen to after 9/11. has your house been searched – who’s has? Where are the ‘volumes” of egregious abuses?

Do you disagree that we should be able to listen to conversations overseas of suspected terrorists – or should we first have “proof” they are terrorists that we can present to a judge?

Entspeak


You are correct.



Could be, depends on whether you are just incapable, or you just choose not to. The first just means you are inadequate to the task, the later means you are being close- minded, as you have close your mind to the idea of understanding.



Laws aren't mention because they are inherent in every one of these definitions. How do we define citizenship with out laws?? How do we define our territory with out laws?? How do we define the state or district one lives in with out laws??




Sure... I'll concede to it.


Entspeak, I didn't know how you would define country, but we are passed that now. Let's get to the point...



Only if you define "the whole you" as a being outside your own physical characteristics, which most people do everyday. The question I asked is "do you define your cowlick as you" The answer is NO.

But you do define the country as "the people of the state or district" We are not the Borg of Star Trek. So to love the people you must love all of us individually, but you only love some of the people.

So in essence, you love "some of the people of the state or district". But the definition of country you want to use is "the people of the state or district", which you don't love.



And you do you love this part as well??

Definitions of patriotism on the Web:

love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it; "they rode the same wave of popular patriotism"; "British nationalism was in the air and ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland' (Latin patria < Greek patrida, πατρίδα), by individuals and groups. The 'fatherland' (or 'motherland') can be a region or a city, but patriotism usually applies to a nation and/or a nation-state. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism

devotion to a community as opposed to devotion to one's individual interests without considering what is good for the community. It would be patriotic to walk, ride a bicycle or have a fuel efficient car to help keep the price of energy low. ...
www.fsmitha.com/defini.html

strong feelings of love and devotion to one's country and, if necessary, one will fight to defend it.
www.durham.gov.uk/recordoffice/usp.nsf/pws/Durham+Record+Office+-+The+Learning+Zone+-+World+War+One+-+Glossary

is a feeling of love and devotion to one's own homeland (patria, the land of one's fathers). This article surveys the concept of patriotism from the viewpoints of history, politics, ethics, and biology.
dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/patriotic

So?





Just because King and Wright have studied some theology does not make them in any way qualified to address matters of international law.



I send letters to my Congressman and to the President regularly. I express my opinion. I don't have to shout and sling epithets. Douglass was using overblown rhetoric, of course.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe the Beatles said it best: "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."




There are very many, but here are two quick examples

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

First, Article 42 effectively usurps the President as Commander in Chief of the US military. If UN Security Council can order any kind of military "operations" by Member nations, one of them being the USA, then they are usurping the President's power. Only the Congress can declare war, and only the Pres can be commander in chief. The Const would need to be amended to permit the UN to serve as commander of US armed forces under Article 41.

As to Article 51, they have effectively said Members cannot wage aggressive war, only defensive war. The right to wage war--any war--is an intrinsic attribute of sovereignty; to waive any right to wage war would require amending the Const to limit our warmaking powers, as our Const does not limit the nation's warmaking power to only "defensive wars".

Here is one more interesting clause:

Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

I wonder if NATO is aware their treaty had been superseded?

Borders are defined by laws, but does that mean that you define a border as a law? No.



err... okay.



No, I do not define myself entirely as me. But it is a part of me.



If I can not like my cowlick and love myself as a whole, I can love the nation as a whole without liking all of its individual parts.



I defined country as nation, obviously because I've been using them interchangeably throughout this conversation.



I have no love for the current government, no. This doesn't mean I don't love the nation. Doesn't mean I can't be patriotic in my rebuking of the government. Just means I'm not a government loyalist.

Entspeak



You made a comment that in the definitions you found of "country" made no mention of laws or policies. I was merely pointing out that the words that were in the definitions of necessitated law. i.e. law dictates what it takes to be a citizen of a nation. Nothing more nothing less.



?? I'm guessing you when you use the word "myself" you meant "my cowlick".



Of course you can Entspeak, but only after you do exactly what you are doing. You are equating nationhood with personhood. As if a country has a soul or an essence outside it's collective parts that you can love overall. As I said earlier, you have to almost see the "country" as a being or an entity, that though it makes flawed mistakes, it generally has a giving and good spirit to be loved and cherished.

And it is this essence that you love... not the actual people that ARE the nation.



I know you have been. I don't think you should, but hey, I am willing to debate you from your stance and definition. I think this the most effective. But I think nationalism should be use with nations, and patriotism should be used with a country, for the simple fact you can have multiple nations of people within a single country.



Well, we all have to start somewhere...

Droop, in the West over the last few centuries generally "nation" and "country" have been interchangeable meaning "nation state". I think most US citizens (and our law, with the exception of the several Indian nations we recognize within our borders) recognize one nation and one country that is the USA. If people try to concoct multiple nations within this country, then I believe that would be treasonous, as we understand the term.

I don't think so.

Here is the OED definition of nationalism:



From the Merriam Webster:



Here are some links...
Nationalism vs. Patriotism
Patriotism or Nationalism?

So, I'd say that the difference between nationalism and patriotism is exactly what this thread is discussing.

I believe the nationalist fits into this category of someone "who, under the specious and popular garb of patriotism, seeks to excuse, palliate, and defend" the sins of their country (nation).

Quick,

I'll address this one first:



I doubt they were aware that it could be superseded by the UN Charter... being that it came after the UN Charter and considering that it, actually, "reaffirms" the UN Charter's "purposes and principles".



Uh... que? So, the Constitution, under international law, not only has to apply to the United States, it has to apply to the rest of the world? The international community must abide by the US Constitution under international law?

Why is that, quick? Because the US Constitution is somehow superior?

droop224


Well of course our country does not posses feelings, which in turn justifies complements made by people who consider themselves patriots. I still think what your saying is inaccurate. The things that this country has done right are worth mentioning to most Liberals if you ask me. Take going to the Moon for example, as an accomplishment. There is noting wrong with looking back on things such as that and sayings its things like this that make me feel proud to live here. Liberals and Conservatives frequently speak highly about their country. So patriotism, and blind foolishness do not go hand in hand. What would be the point of launching criticisms to make things better if a person is not appreciative of the things that have gotten better?

Actually going to the moon does not make me feel proud to be a citizen of the United States of America. The fact that trying to do so brought a lot of working class heros into college does. We had to as a nation get smarter quicker because of Sputnik. Now we're getting smarter quicker because you need a degree to be a janitor. Okay, I exaggerate, but hey, it's heading that way.

I'm not sure that makes me proud. I am certain that not everybody belongs in college. I am certain that we have gone overboard on credentials, and I am darn near certain that we're losing the innovative edge. I am convinced that we are downright stupid for not going after alternative energy as if it were a race to the moon.

Well, anyway, calling upon your diety to damn your country isn't anything new. Doing so for a personal loved one isn't new either. But is it an expression of love?

Don't lovers fight?

If they don't fight, is there any love?

Yes and no.

I think plenty of conservatives have to admit that there are some things still wrong with this country. Appealing to the idea that some things have gotten better is a way to avoid the fight, and so is not an act of love but of denial and avoidance. I strongly suspect it is also motivated by selfishness.

How did that go, ask not what your country can do for you . . .

Is it not true that there are several (multiple, even) "nations" within the USA mostly made up of Native American (or whatever this weeks acceptable term for the various groups of people whose ancestry in the Americas pre-dates European migrations there) tribes?

Is in not also true that Quarkhead - to name one example - lives in one of them. The "Makah nation", according to his profile?

Do you therefore believe that all residents of such nations are also treasonous, as you* understand the term? (And do you see how your ignorance of this, or choice to ignore it, might not be a little rude to Quarkhead?)

*How I understand the term is irrelevant, since I live in a single country of four nations, or a single nation of four countries, all of which taken together make up a single state.

You live in a federal country of 50 states (assuming that commonwealth and state are interchangeable), AND multiple nations, and agglomerate to make up a single nation state.

The terms may be interchangeable, but whatever else is true, "country" and "nation" are names given to layers in heirarchical organisations, and not universally or definitively the highest layer of all hierarchies, as you seem to think.

The answer is simple: The Const provides by its terms one way by which it may be amended. It does not provide for amendment by treaty. So, if we agree to a treaty that serves to amend our Const, then before the treaty becomes effective, we should have to pass an amendment to the Constitution to make the treaty and the Const consistent. It just makes sense. It has nothing to do with the "international community", whatever that is.




If you had bothered to read my post that you quoted, you would have seen that I specifically excepted Indian tribes that we chose to allow continued legal existence. I bolded the text above for you to see.

I believe it goes something like this, "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. " Simple, huh? Or maybe this rings for you: "E pluribus unum". "From many, one." There is a trend here.

We are one nation, one country, one people, by law and by design--with the exception of some Indian tribes we permit to exist as separate nations within our borders, as I stated previously.

Can a country opt not to participate in a UN mission? I think so. And who would make that decision? The President? Congress? So, how does this Article usurp the power of the President as Commander in Chief?



So, basically, any peace treaty we sign is not worth the paper it's written on because it limts this supposed "right to wage war". Peace treaties don't amend the constitution, either, do they? Somehow, I think you don't really know what you're talking about.

This is completely off topic. If you wish to continue this discussion, start another thread. I'll be happy to read your response to this there.

I read both these links and i wanted to make a comment on them as well as address some of the things within.

My first comment. Notice how in both these links the authors remark on how you define Patriotism and how to define nationalism. These definitions are arbitrary. They are completely necessary, but none the less one could say Patriotism is a stronger version of nationalism, if they chose to.

Here is what I mean... I went to dictionary.com and looked up Patriotism. Came back with a definition of:

Patriotism:
devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.

now in your first link it is defined as such the author uses a definition from George Orwell he says (patriotism) is:

Notice that the definition from the dictionary connotes a higher degree of reverance than the definiton used by the author in the first link. The first states that patriotism is a "devoted love" the later says it is merely "admiration".

In your second link, the objective of the author in my opinion is to basically call out nationalism as patriotism on steroids. Which could or could not be true. Why do i say that well it goes back to how the individual chooses to define Nationalism and Patriotism.

I looked up nationalism as well at dictionary.com. And unlike Patriotism with only one definition on the first entry, nationalism had quite a few definitions that could be used.

The first definition of nationalism was.

1. national spirit or aspirations

Well this definition lacks the stregnth and vitality of the words used by the definition of Patriotism IT doesn't require devoted love, just a little team spirit and hope for your nation.

the second:

2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.

Well this definition is exactly the same as Patriotism this is the definiton that one could use when they wish to interchange the words patriotism and nationalism.

the third defines nationalism as:

3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism

O.K. Too much patriotism. Now this is likely your stance.

Basically because of the definitions, or lack there of, you have a term patriotism that is so broad and encompasses anything from admiration of a countries accomplishments, to the devoted love to your nation. and from there you can parse the words of country and what we mean there or we can chop up how much reverance must be showed to meet the requirements of the word "devoted". Oh but from there we can even start interchanging the word nationalism in there, and use it as a more passive, similar, or more aggressive form of Patriotism

At the end of the day you know what you have. A HOT MESS!!!

Thus as you debate Mrs P earlier, it was clear to me that are not defining patriotism the same. You are using the same word but the degree of devotion needed to be patriotic his higher for her than you. And neither of you can actually be wrong because of the sheer scope of the term patriotism.

IMO, She's drinking more of the koolaid than you, but you're still drinking the koolaid. I still catch myself drinking the Kool-aid from time to time.

Even if we can agree that nationalism is a bigger, badder, unhealthier version of Patriotism, how do you change the fact that Patriotism is still a form of nationalism and vice versa. O.K. you don't drink Miller Genuine Draft... you only drink the Miller-Lite...

From you second link



No patriotism is not like family love. Family "love" is natural. It is seen through out nature. The protection of one pact or society. The protection of our young, the protection of our immediate surroundings. Family love is innate and recipricol. Patriotism is artificial and taught. It takes what is natural, "love of family", and extends it to encompass "a nation" or "country". There is a reason why we say the pledge every day when we were kids.. to enforce a value system that would not naturally be there.

The reason is simple to produce the same emotional attitudes, reactions, and responses within a populace of people, as if we were all family. Notice how many on the left blame the government for the war in Iraq. Yeah right... It wasn't the government it was Americans that allowed it to happen.

An analogy...

Because of patriotism, New York wasn't attacked on 9/11 we all were. And overwhelmingly there was a sense of vulnerability that led to national anger. We were the woman sitting stool at the bar all emotional. Then here comes "the man" giving us the drink and smooth words. So emotions are overiding our sense to begin with, the drink is making us more plyable, really, the drink has us senseless, and the next thing we know we are face down, tail up, in the back seat of some pick up wondering... "how the Hell did I get here".... Now here we stuck in Iraq, with a case of herpes, and stuck to raise a baby.

What happens to patriotism, when there is a perceived threat.... what happens to patriotism when you have an angered populace??

Even if you want to define Nationalism of a raging fire, and Patriotism as a smoldering ember, at any point the smoldering ember can be turned to a raging fire, simply by adding feul.

Net2007

QUOTE

Then why should we profess an emotional feeling such as love to something that does not possess the feelings to receive such a gesture??




Maybe you are right. Tell me why is it that the right seems so angry at people who criticize america with strong terms. Such as rev wright saying God Damn america. Or why is it that the right seem to be overly upset at people like Michael Moore. Why did the right start calling left "American Haters". There has to be something that the right is seeing. Of course i am generalizing, but there is a trend is it not.



No nothing wrong with it.... just nothing right about it, either. Personal preference. And I agree that liberals do tend to have admiration for the accomplishments of our country, and we should. But if simple admiration of accomplishemnts was enough to be Patriotic... would we be having this debate?? I think not.



Simple. To continue to make things better.

droop224





I never said we should, I said you can be proud of your country, and complement the things that make it great to live here, without loving your country as you would a family, then you agreed if I remember right.



Well because some liberals do hate this country, its that simple, I don't think its all Liberals or even Most liberals. However when some people decide to push forward their political agenda at the expense of honesty it paints a pretty clear picture. When some people dedicate their lives to creating movies that all suggest this nation in one way or another is corrupt and evil, while having to stretch the truth to do it, it paints a pretty clear picture. If you cant admit bias and corruption, and even hatred among your own political party, than your part of the problem not the solution. Personally I don't deny such elements exist among conservatives. There are conservatives who stretch the truth as much as some liberals. Well almost.



Sure its enough. Your problem is that your confusing patriotism with foolishness. There is nothing wrong with being a patriot, there is nothing wrong with being proud to be a part of something greater than yourself, whether it be a football team, a school, or a country. If there is something wrong with that, then I suppose there is something wrong with me, and if people want to associate patriotism with blindness or foolishness then I'll accept those labels and take them with a grain of salt, because whats most important to me is that I know what I am, and I know who I am. So I don't particuarly care how many on the left label patriotism.



You see I do both, a person can acknowledge the good things while continuing to make criticisms on the things that need improvement. However if you don't notice the many things that make this country so great, whats the freakin point?

Net2007


No, you didn't... but the definition of Patriotism does. See what I am saying Entspeak. Now for me to debate Net2007 I have to use how he defines Patriotism.



Well then why would they remain?? Why change it even. I mean Canada isn't a third world nation, why wouldn't they just move up there?? And why make movies, like "Sicko" which tries to expose the health care so that Americans will seek a better solution to our lack of healthcare in our UBER-RICH country? Is that actually "hate" to you?



See Entspeak, if I don't use his definition of Patriotism, he thinks I am defining foolishness and blindness.
Net, I'm not confusing them, I'm telling you they are one in the same when the term is used in it's more common sense, "Love and Devotion to your country" Your definition of just admiring accomplishments seems reasonable to me... it just doesn't sound like, Patriotism.

I mean we are all proud of some aspect, law, accomplishemnt, or belief system in America, well at least 99.9% of us.



huh?? Your definition of Patriotism has got to be one of the most liberal definitions of Patriotism I've ever heard, and I love you for it. I don't have to be devoted and in love. Merely by admiring and feeling proud of the accomplishments, I THINK are worthy, makes me a Patriot.


Here, Here.


Well, good for ya'!! Toot that horn, baby toot-toot!! Now just don't assume that because other don't go tooting that it means we don't see accomplishments.

droop224

Net2007


Oh I didn't say that? I didn't say you can be proud of your country, and complement the things that make it great to live here, without loving your country as you would a family? Come on man, you know I said that. Yesterday post number 50............

Net2007 By the way you can care about the state of your country, and support it, without being in love with it as you would a family.



I'm sure some of them do move, And why would people like Michael Moore make movies, like Sicko? If you asked why a biased liar like him wouldn't make a movie like that I could give you a shorter post. Here is a quick run down..... Number one motivator... (pushing forward his political opinion while presenting it as fact) If you notice his documentaries do not contain counter arguments like true documentaries would. Some people live for this crap just like 9/11 conspiracy theorist, or moon hoax theorist. Its usually all a part of a personal or political agenda. Motivator Number 2... good old fashion money my friend. Big bank accounts, big houses, several cars, you get the idea. Motivator number 3, fame and publicity. Which of course makes it easier to push forward his opinion as if its accurate. If he has name recognition people like you take him seriously, well that and the fact that he hates conservatives which I'm sure some of his fans just cant get enough of.


See that last line there? That last line that you typed is patriotism in its simplest of forms, at least I think. True and genuine patriotism is not about backing something based on your parties affiliation, or loyalty, its about being proud of living here for what makes this country great. So whether you know it or not thats true patriotism, and more people posses it than you would think, probably including yourself from what I'm hearing. So again your only problem is the way your going about defining patriotism, the definition you use , to define patriotism, while sometimes accurate, is only an example of one type of patriotism. In my first response to this post I said patriotism can be practiced in one of two ways, and I believe it.


Yea thats all I meant, and you can even criticize things you don't agree with and still be a patriot. The only thing I have a problem with is when people start burning flags, or do nothing but talk about whats wrong with America. I think there should be a balance where people speak openly about the things that make this country special to them, as well as being critical when they think something isn't right. If Michael Moore for example made just one movie, wrote just one book, or made just a few public appearances, where he started talking about something other than what makes this country suck to him, I wouldn't believe he is just a Bias bigot at all. I don't believe that about many people who make criticisms. Only when a clear pattern develops in those criticisms, like if a conservative did nothing but demonize liberals, or if a Black or White man did nothing but criticize the other race. Thats always a clear indicator of Bias, or racism, or some other agenda.



Well so long as you notice the accomplishments along with our shortcomings I suppose thats the most important thing. Lol I think your probably a patriot and didn't even know it.

Droop,

I established the context in the first post. Context has an impact upon the way a word is meant. You can choose to accept that context or not. If not... then there's no point in continuing... you can continue to say that the definition of patriotism is too broad, but it is only too broad if you have no context.

Also, the essence of those articles is that nationalism is about superiority, patriotism is not - that is the difference between the two.

And, you've removed the comparison to family love from it's context. Patriotism is like family love IN THAT... (insert the other clause to explain the extent to which patriotism is like family love.)

You've dismissed the comparison by taking the comparison farther than it was intended... removing it from the context of the statement.


And... that's about as far as I read of your post.

Calm down Net....

I'll walk you through

I said
Then why should we profess an emotional feeling such as love to something that does not possess the feelings to receive such a gesture??

You said
I never said we should, I said you can be proud of your country and complement the things that make it great to live here, without loving your country as you would a family, then you agreed if I remember right.

So I replied to the highlighted part.

No, you didn't... but the definition of Patriotism does.

Meaning that: No you didn't say we should profess love to a country to be patriotic... but the definition of patriotism does. Go look up Patriotism and you'll see I am right.

QUOTE

I'm sure some of them do move, And why would people like Michael Moore make movies, like Sicko? If you asked why a biased liar like him wouldn't make a movie like that I could give you a shorter post. Here is a quick run down..... Number one motivator... (pushing forward his political opinion while presenting it as fact) If you notice his documentaries do not contain counter arguments like true documentaries would. Some people live for this crap just like 9/11 conspiracy theorist, or moon hoax theorist. Its usually all a part of a personal or political agenda. Motivator Number 2... good old fashion money my friend. Big bank accounts, big houses, several cars, you get the idea. Motivator number 3, fame and publicity. Which of course makes it easier to push forward his opinion as if its accurate. If he has name recognition people like you take him seriously, well that and the fact that he hates conservatives which I'm sure some of his fans just cant get enough of.

He's an American, who wants to promote a political agenda to Americans, by making movies about America that makes him rich with American money and become an famous American star... yet many call him an American hater.... how sad, I hope you're not one of them. That is the poison of patriotism... or what some would call nationalism.. Which I think is part of the reason Entspeak made this debate to question this idea that strong or constant criticism to our policies and laws can be construed as "anti-American."

QUOTE

See that last line there? That last line that you typed is patriotism in its simplest of forms, at least I think. True and genuine patriotism is not about backing something based on your parties affiliation, or loyalty, its about being proud of living here for what makes this country great. So whether you know it or not thats true patriotism, and more people posses it than you would think, probably including yourself from what I'm hearing. So again your only problem is the way your going about defining patriotism, the definition you use , to define patriotism, while sometimes accurate, is only an example of one type of patriotism.

But I was using the definition from the dictionary. Now, when I use your definition, i'm not at all surprised that more people are patriotic than you think, I think. In fact, when we use your definition, I'm surprised you think any one IS NOT patriotic. Cause I have never EVER met, saw, or heard, someone (a citizen) who couldn't find anything to be proud of or at least admire, when it came to this country. Not even Michael Moore.

QUOTE

Yea thats all I meant, and you can even criticize things you don't agree with and still be a patriot. The only thing I have a problem with is when people start burning flags, or do nothing but talk about whats wrong with America. I think there should be a balance where people speak openly about the things that make this country special to them, as well as being critical when they think something isn't right.

Now you are back tracking off your own definition of Patriotism. One could do or not do all the things you just wrote and still be proud or admire some things about our country. Stick with it if you can.

It's ironic that you chose to draw the "patriot line" at flag burning, Net, because when comparing flag burners with those who would prevent them from burning the flag, it's the flag burners who come out on the correct side of the Constitution.

Criticism of the government plays a crucial role in keeping that government in line. Praise serves no useful function.

droop224



You really believe they mean love in the traditional sense in that definition? Patriotism comes in different forms, and on different levels. If you took everything you heard as literally as the definition of patriotism, you would no doubt go around frantically burning mistletoes to save lives during Christmas in fear that anyone kissing underneath one would surely die. Words like patriotism cant be described fully in one sentence.


I wouldn't say he hates the country as a whole, but he hates other opinions, and probably the gouvernment in general, and he'll do anything to push forward his beliefs. So I'm confident right wing conservatives disgust him, and I'm confident that he's more than manipulative the way he produces documentaries. I saw two people get on the Glenn Beck news show that worked with Michael Moore who today are still as liberal as they ever were, yet they said that Michael Moore's methods were as crooked as some of the politicians he preaches out against, lol. This was in regards to his movie Sicko. The problem is that none of his pieces are true documentaries like they are hyped up to be. A real documentary tells both sides of the story, not solely the side that reflects the views of the author, that guy is a joke.


No burning flags is just stupid, thats a symbol for America as a whole, not a symbol that represents things that protesters disagre with. So when somebody burns a U.S. flag, that says they are not to fond of America obviously, to me its not rocket science. People like that preach democracy and open mindedness all the time yet they are some of the most intolerant people when it comes to views they disagre with. People like that are hypocrites, and they have nothing better to do but waste their time pushing their beliefs onto others. Also people who can go 5 years doing nothing but griping and moaning about whats not right with America, all I have to say to them is take the corn cob out your rear, shut the hell up, then run for office, and quit wasting your time accomplishing nothing.

There is a line that separates those who simply voice their opinion, and make criticisms based on things they are concerned about, and those who dedicate their lives to preaching their opinion, while exploiting others for theirs, in some cases going as far as to pull things out of context or flat out lie. Ive never been one to put people all in the same boat. I have no shortage of criticisms myself on this country, as well as this administration. Look some things are screwed up, the situation with our boarder is out of control, health care needs a face lift as well as Social Security. This country is in debt, and has been for decades. So yes many things need fixing, but I'm not about to start burning flags, then drop everything in my life to march in Washington with a bunch of losers who have nothing better to do. If I were to get that involved, id run for office and try and make a difference, instead of griping and moaning about what other people are doing wrong 24/7 like a bunch of little wind up dolls screaming.. YAK YAK YAK

Context. First, the definition does not say that patriotism is loving one's country exactly and in every sense like one loves one's family. You really should stop this, droop, it's getting old. And I would say that you don't have to love your country in exactly the same way that you love your family. Doesn't mean that it's false to say that patriotism is, in some ways, like family love - as has been stated previously.

You are still taking arguments and expanding them beyond their context.

In 1964, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, and Fred Waring paid tribute to fallen president John F. Kennedy with a classic token of American exceptionalism: An album called "America, I Hear You Singing," which echoed patriot Walt Whitman's poem of the same name in more ways than one. In Whitman's poem, written at a time when America was literally coming undone, he magically hears America singing in unison. Whatever differences existed within this nation of immigrants and nativists, slaveowners and abolitionists, industrialists and anti-industrialists are wiped away from Whitman's vision. All we get is the ethereal music of the American city, blending into the softs pads of the American frontier. The Sinatra record is basically the same load of bull -- at the very moment when dixiecrats were threatening to bolt the democratic column and urban unrest was overtaking cities from north to south, the album's liner notes present the close-knit trio of genteel lounge singers as "three of America's most representative voices" (ha!) and stresses the need for unconditional unity, which you and I can basically take as a fairly dismissive stance on divisive civil rights marches and so forth.

Still.

I think that record accurately expresses an age-old strand of patriotism -- or nationalism, maybe -- that about 30-50 percent of this country consciously or unconsciously holds. It's a form of patriotism that involves unconditional love for one's country; it's a patriotism that is put off by "hyphenated" Americans, as if any word could or should come before the ultimate modifier "american." And it's a form of patriotism that sees unity as more important than drummed-up outrage -- until, that is one falls into the minority, in which case its OK to go on AM airwaves every day and rant and rave about diversionary wedge issues.

When Zell Miller stood up at the GOP convention and all but accused the democratic party of treason for nominating an opposition candidate during a time of war, he spoke from the fiery belly of this camp. When Cindy McCain offers herself as a statuesque, unwavering fan of America, in contrast to the unproud, self-loathing Michelle Obama, she speaks from the quieter, more gentle side of this camp.

But.

Personally, I've always believed that a nation has to earn my trust and love -- not by distributing hand-outs, or subsidizing my mortgage, but by advancing and reflecting values that are far more timeless and universal than the abstraction of the 49th parallel. One day, the United States will be an obscure noun from the history books, as remote as the Saffavid empire or the Roman Republic. But justice, liberty, equality, fairness, humanitarianism, empathy, pacifism -- these are values at least as old as the Gospel according to St. Luke. Maybe it's because I've lived in nations far friendlier, and in some aspects, more free than America, but I have few illusions about America's singularity in this world. As a collection of like-minded individuals, we have our share of wonderful quirks and blessings to offer this world -- but we are neither as singular or sacrosanct a nation entity as Frank Sinatra would have us believe. So, if being patriotic, and investing in the soul of my birth nation will help advance the cause of human rights and human dignity, then I will be the first to wave a flag in pride and admiration. And more often than not, that has been the case.

But I don't see how, by virtue of my birth and residency here, I owe this country my unconditional love. My love for this country is both robust and conditional.

Fair point. I did see your exemption, but since the exempted Indian nations share common representation at the international level with the USA (the State department, Homeland Security, EPA, FAA, FEMA, Treasury FBI and DoD represent them as much as they do Illinois), and don't (as far as I know) issue their own passports , is it not fair to say that while they are nations, they are not nation-states?

And because of this, that the "nation state" that is the USA - in reality rather than rhetoric - is not one nation under God etc. but several nations?

Or, if that's not the case, that it is possible for the nation-state represented by the US Federal government to be in fact a heirarchical entity, the top level of which is "one nation under God etc." but which has nation-level component parts - the Indian nations you've already exempted?

For example, I doubt very much whether you or any other American would expect that someone belonging to one of the Indian nations would not also identify as an American.

What I'm getting at is that, by exempting them from your definition of what constitutes the entity to which patriotism is owed, you're oversimplifying so that the "one nation" idea and rhetoric still fits. Useful ideas should fit reality, surely, rather than the other way around?

This is hilarious. I NEVER said that "patriotism is loving one's country exactly and in every sense like one loves one's family." I only brought it up when talking IN CONTEXT to the links you posted.

However, I did say the definition of Patriotism does say you have to love your country. I was pointing this out to Net2007, because he doesn't feel you have to love your country to be patriotic.

Maybe you have your debate walls up too high to absorb anything I am actually saying.


And if you have been listening, you would know that I agree with you, if you believe what you are saying.

You want to keep talking about context to me, can you not honestly see the context in which you define patriotism is different from the context in Net2007 defines it, which is different than in the context that Mrs P defines it, which is different from the context that Freder