I kind of had an awakening regarding patriotism just yesterday. I was standing outside work waiting for my carppol and this older black man, who lives next to my office, was on his porch taking down the flag and carefully rolling it up. He does this everynight just as the sun is going and when it's raining outside.
Here's a guy who in his 80's possibly has seen both the good and the bad of America. I'm sure he's been a victim of racism at one point or another in his long life, yet here he is showing great respect for the country.
While I do think that our country has it's very dark moments and rouge elements in our governement I think the general good of the people of this country is there.
I am ashamed of what is happening in this country now. I'm a firm believer that something very wrong within members of our own government had something to do with the assassination of JFK and with the events of 9/11, but if you look down Main Street USA after those events the flag and patriotism is what in the end brought this country back together.
It's too bad in both those examples the country was just as soon divided with wars that were a result of both of those dark days in our history.
Patriotism is something that brings the country back together when bad things happen. It's not putting a yellow magnet on your car saying you support the troops. We all do, no one wants a US soldier to die in combat but you don't need a yellow ribbon to say that. I think it says a lot about our country when people feel like they HAVE to put a yellow ribbon to say they support the troops.
Patriotism to me is also questioning what the government is doing. If we let them do whatever the heck they want, than it's up to the patriots to keep them in check so this country doesn't fall apart because of actions of a government.
How do you arrive at that I equate patriotism with ignorance?
Again, I wonder if you would indulge my curiosity about why would you argue against going beyond your roots?
"At the same time, when I see people using that argument to justify undermining of other countries, something unjustifiable is being justified."
If I misunderstood what you meant by this line my apologies, but the way I understood it, it has nothing to do with patriotism, it has to do with ignorance or arrogance.
And Im not exactly sure what you mean by going beyond your roots. But what I was saying was, you can embrace the positive aspects of your own society and culture, while still appreciating and respecting other cultures. If thats what you mean by going beyond your roots, then I agree with ya.
"At the same time, when I see people using that argument to justify undermining of other countries, something unjustifiable is being justified."
If I misunderstood what you meant by this line my apologies, but the way I understood it, it has nothing to do with patriotism, it has to do with ignorance or arrogance.
Specifically, when someone actually uses patriotism to justify the unjustifiable, I view that as them using patriotism to ill means. While patriotism and ignorance are separate concepts, when people cannot discriminate between them, and blur them, and use one to excuse the other, the pure purpose of patriotism is being distorted.
And Im not exactly sure what you mean by going beyond your roots. But what I was saying was, you can embrace the positive aspects of your own society and culture, while still appreciating and respecting other cultures. If thats what you mean by going beyond your roots, then I agree with ya.
Okay, I wanted clarification on that, because I am with you on the part about appreciating and respecting other cultures, and I was wondering why you would limit this concept, and the growth and expansion of doing this by on one hand standing behind it, but on another hand arguing against it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Patriotism is something that brings the country back together when bad things happen. It's not putting a yellow magnet on your car saying you support the troops. We all do, no one wants a US soldier to die in combat but you don't need a yellow ribbon to say that. I think it says a lot about our country when people feel like they HAVE to put a yellow ribbon to say they support the troops.
Patriotism to me is also questioning what the government is doing. If we let them do whatever the heck they want, than it's up to the patriots to keep them in check so this country doesn't fall apart because of actions of a government.
I'm not simply trying to be controversial here but I'd say that what you describe as patriotism here is something else altogether. Something more human and universal like compassion, or even a kind of stoic resolve.
Looked at a bit more philosophically, or even slightly askew - if there are patriots within every country in the world, and if these like-minded people have a tendency to behave in the same way in response to an event/tragedy like you describe, then does this not negate the individualistic and nationalistic aspect of 'Patriotism'?
I think these feelings go deeper than abstract concepts like 'country' and 'flag' and that these tags are pasted onto such basically human/universal feelings for unhealthy, and more often than not, political reasons.
But according to dictionary.com, the defintion of patriotism is "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty."
By this definition I'm not a patriot either. But, I see nothing wrong with being fond of your country's culture or good doings. For example, I was born in Chile, raised in Venezuela and I'm currently living in Argentina. I feel a connection to each country, and when I was in school I would find the biggest waste of time to sing the anthem, and to pay respect to the flag and Simon Bolivar's statue and whatnot. I still think it's silly. Yet, I have to admit that when I listen to Venezuela's or Chile's anthem in a sports competition I feel something inside me, maybe nostalgia, maybe the memories of friends, relatives and good times come back all of a sudden...also since my father is Italian I have a strong connection to Italia's culture, as well. I guess I don't know where I'm from .
Seriously, what I strongly disagree is with totalitarian visions, like "my country is the best". Such kind of statements are wrong to me, because you country is the best to you, given your preferences, your taste, the sociopolitical conditions of the country, the landscapes, the economic conditions of the country, the idiosyncracy of the country, and many other subjective factors (by subjetctive I refer to the weight or relevance you give to each aspect). In my case I don't feel proud of any of "my countries" per se, I can see and underline a good thing they are doing (likewise I stress the things that are not being done correctly), but I in general I tend to feel joy or whatever for personal or small collective achievements, like Italy winning the WC, Nalbandian's outstanding career, Borges' books, Neruda's poems, Venezuela's soccer improvements...
And the fact that our world is divided in countries is for administrative, organizational and practical reasons. The concept of a country (or Nation-Sate) is rather new, though, it begun to "become popular" in the end of the XIXth century, for geopolitical reasons, mainly.
Specifically, when someone actually uses patriotism to justify the unjustifiable, I view that as them using patriotism to ill means. While patriotism and ignorance are separate concepts, when people cannot discriminate between them, and blur them, and use one to excuse the other, the pure purpose of patriotism is being distorted.
Okay, I wanted clarification on that, because I am with you on the part about appreciating and respecting other cultures, and I was wondering why you would limit this concept, and the growth and expansion of doing this by on one hand standing behind it, but on another hand arguing against it.
Im not arguing against it. I think its great to learn, respect, and appreciate other cultures. But I can do all these things while still respecting and appreciating my culture as well. I am just not exactly sure what you mean by going beyond your roots. If you mean ditching your roots, then I dont agree with you. If you simply mean learning about other cultures and understanding that there is more out there than just your little corner of the world, then I certainly agree with you.
Im not arguing against it. I think its great to learn, respect, and appreciate other cultures. But I can do all these things while still respecting and appreciating my culture as well. I am just not exactly sure what you mean by going beyond your roots. If you mean ditching your roots, then I dont agree with you. If you simply mean learning about other cultures and understanding that there is more out there than just your little corner of the world, then I certainly agree with you.
She made the point that our roots are internalized. We can't shake them off like old clothes.
Im not arguing against it. I think its great to learn, respect, and appreciate other cultures. But I can do all these things while still respecting and appreciating my culture as well. I am just not exactly sure what you mean by going beyond your roots. If you mean ditching your roots, then I dont agree with you. If you simply mean learning about other cultures and understanding that there is more out there than just your little corner of the world, then I certainly agree with you.
What I'm saying is do we want to put a cap on our growth and evolution? A tree is grounded by it's roots as it expands and branches out. I would not suggest ditching one's roots, because that is plain old unhealthy. And I would not want to limit growing and moving beyond one's roots. They sky is the limit with true growth, evolution and expansion. The sky is the limit EXCEPT when people impose limits on their awareness based on their own preferences. This is not embracing roots, this is using one's roots to strangle growth. It is misusing one's roots in a sense. However each choice is valid for reasons within the individual. When others choose to strangle growth and understanding, I support their right to choose. It is what it is. However, I don't limit my own growth and understanding. Rather, I deliberately open myself up to understand truths that are not natural to me, therefore experiencing understanding beyond my roots.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Did you agree with the second part of my statement that equated Patriotism with keeping jobs "at home"?
Some what. I get mad when jobs are taken over seas not because an American is loosing their job but because a person is loosing their job. It also angers me that this was done because their employer wants to exploit the population of some 3rd world country in order to increase their profits.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
What I'm saying is do we want to put a cap on our growth and evolution? A tree is grounded by it's roots as it expands and branches out. I would not suggest ditching one's roots, because that is plain old unhealthy. And I would not want to limit growing and moving beyond one's roots. They sky is the limit with true growth, evolution and expansion. The sky is the limit EXCEPT when people impose limits on their awareness based on their own preferences. This is not embracing roots, this is using one's roots to strangle growth. It is misusing one's roots in a sense. However each choice is valid for reasons within the individual. When others choose to strangle growth and understanding, I support their right to choose. It is what it is. However, I don't limit my own growth and understanding. Rather, I deliberately open myself up to understand truths that are not natural to me, therefore experiencing understanding beyond my roots.
Well I dont know what I said that makes you think I want a cap on our growth and evolution, I certainly dont want that a bit, and I certainly dont think that is a good thing. I think learning about and exploring other cultures is great for the individual, and if more people would do it, great for the world as a whole.
Some what. I get mad when jobs are taken over seas not because an American is loosing their job but because a person is loosing their job. It also angers me that this was done because their employer wants to exploit the population of some 3rd world country in order to increase their profits.
But if a job is sent overseas, nobody lost the job.
I do see the point of using the 3rd world country to increase profits, but by the same token for some of those places that's the only way any progress will be made. And they often need the jobs far worse than the person who lost them.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Well I dont know what I said that makes you think I want a cap on our growth and evolution, I certainly dont want that a bit, and I certainly dont think that is a good thing. I think learning about and exploring other cultures is great for the individual, and if more people would do it, great for the world as a whole.
I thought you wanted to cap growth based on when you said: "You dont have to go "beyond your roots", to understand and appreciate the differences in other cultures and societies. In fact, Im going to argue the opposite."
Arguing the opposite didn't make sense to me, and it sounded limiting to me--like a cap on growth--rather than open.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think a country is defined more by it's common beliefs and ideas as outlined by its Constitution or equivalent rather than being defined by geography. I love the idea of what America is supposed to be. I love the ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and rights against unreasonable search and seizure and against self incrimination. These ideals are the basis for the nickname "land of the free." I will always believe these ideals are worth fighting for. That said, I don't think America is doing a particularly good job of living up to those ideals right now. I'm not sure we ever really have, at least not fully. The potential to be a country that lives up to every single one of those ideas and doesn't back away from them in difficult times will always be worth striving for in my opinion. That potential is why I will always believe in America. As far as flags, to me they are just symbols, and as such have as much or as little power as people give them.
Patriotism, in my mind, is a form of national pride. National pride is the basis of nationalism. From nationalism comes intolerance, ignorance and classism.
Something I've never quite understood. To many, this word simply means the waving of a flag. To others, it represents something a lot deeper than that. What exactly? No idea. I'd like to hear somebody give me a meaningful definition.
What do people think of this concept?
What does it mean?
Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about this country. At least not more or less so than any other place in the world. I don't even know what the word country means. And a flag is as relevant to me as a turd on the side of the street.
Discuss...
Point taken about needing to evolve past the boundaries that divide us as humans. But there is nothing wrong with having pride in the accomplishments of your nation. Regardless if you like it or not, it is part of human history (and a positive part I might add.)
It has been the evolution of humans to divide ourselves into groups to create societies, and then work to better those societies. We didn't just start out with the advantage of satellite communications and the internet. If our ancestors had those tools, I would hope that we could have used them to bring our species together sooner. But expecting us to just exist as one from the begning is unrealistic. It's like expecting a child to have all the knowledge and wisdom of an adult.
It was just common sense, and it was the right thing to do to create groups, tribes, regions and eventually nations. It is only through the institution of governement that extrememly large groups of humans have learned to create one voice, settle disputes, define the rules by which society lives and set a direction for the future. Without the entity of a "nation", it would have been impossible to create the progress that humans have achieved.
Yes, the emotional part of our humanity has gotten the best of us throughout history and the nation has lead to bad things. Sometimes it was on purpose, sometimes it was just the folly of humans making the wrong choices. Much of it has been a learning process. We have expiremented with nations and forms of government for thousands of years. Through the process of trial and error we have come to realize what aspects are good/bad and right/wrong. We shouldn't bash ourselves or deny our past any more than an individual should.
Basically, I agree with you to an extent. But I think you aren't recognizing the contribution nations have made to the human race. I feel they have caused far more good than harm. You may disagree, but humans have conflict because that is just the nature of humans, not becuase we drew these lines and divided ourselves into countries.
As someone previously posted, there is nothing wrong with having pride in your country and those that have served and sacrificed - but you need to be able to balance your point of view and realize that no country is perfect.
Likewise, it is just as wrong of you to deny the positive aspects of our shared past (creating nations is a big part of that) as it is for some nationalistic bigot to boast and trash other nations.
It just takes a balanced perspective, and you don't seem to have that.
I thought you wanted to cap growth based on when you said: "You dont have to go "beyond your roots", to understand and appreciate the differences in other cultures and societies. In fact, Im going to argue the opposite."
Arguing the opposite didn't make sense to me, and it sounded limiting to me--like a cap on growth--rather than open.
Thats because I misunderstood what you meant, which I already explained.
Point taken about needing to evolve past the boundaries that divide us as humans. But there is nothing wrong with having pride in the accomplishments of your nation. Regardless if you like it or not, it is part of human history (and a positive part I might add.)
It has been the evolution of humans to divide ourselves into groups to create societies, and then work to better those societies. We didn't just start out with the advantage of satellite communications and the internet. If our ancestors had those tools, I would hope that we could have used them to bring our species together.
But it was just common sense, and it was the right thing to do to create groups, tribes, regions and eventually nations. It is only through the institution of governement that extrememly large groups of humans have learned to create one voice, settle disputes, define the rules by which society lives and set a direction for the future. Without the entity of a "nation", it would have been impossible to create the progress that humans have achieved.
Yes, the emotional part of our humanity has gotten the best of us throughout history and the nation has lead to bad things. Sometimes it was on purpose, sometimes it was just the folly of humans making the wrong choices.
Basically, I agree with you to an extent. But I think you aren't recognizing the contribution nations have made to the human race. I feel they have caused far more good than harm. You may disagree, but humans have conflict because that is just the nature of humans, not becuase we drew these lines and divided ourselves into countries.
As someone previously posted, there is nothing wrong with having pride in your country and those that have served and sacrificed - but you need to be able to balance your point of view and realize that no country is perfect.
Likewise, it is just as wrong of you to deny the positive aspects of our shared past (creating nations is a big part of that) as it is for some nationalistic bigot to boast and trash other nations.
It just takes a balanced perspective, and you don't seem to have that.
Do you also recognize that our past is our roots, which Byrnzie agreed that we have internalized and are part of us? Do you recognize that what we did in the past was immensely relevent for that stage of evolution. And that what we are proposing is that we rise above that while also including it? Do you agree that the present is about what is appropriate for this stage of evolution, now? Evolution is about transcending AND including. Moving beyond, yet integrating where we have been.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But if a job is sent overseas, nobody lost the job.
I do see the point of using the 3rd world country to increase profits, but by the same token for some of those places that's the only way any progress will be made. And they often need the jobs far worse than the person who lost them.
You do have a point but the condition in which theses people work in and the manner in which they are treated is criminal. Just becausetheyare offered employement for nickels a day doesn't mean that they aren't being exploited.
As far as no one losing the job, yes the person holding that position lost it to someone else. Not because of job performance but because their employer decided to increase their profit margin by paying some poor 10 year old kid a dollar a day to work 18 hours a day in horrid and unsafe conditions.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
humans have conflict because that is just the nature of humans, not becuase we drew these lines and divided ourselves into countries.
it is just as wrong of you to deny the positive aspects of our shared past (creating nations is a big part of that) as it is for some nationalistic bigot to boast and trash other nations.
It just takes a balanced perspective, and you don't seem to have that.
I believe that conflict is an offshoot of human stupidity. Human stupidity is in the nature of humans, but I will not celebrate or encourage human stupidity.
I don't deny the positive aspects of our past. As I stated above, I believe that we should celebrate all that is good and of value in all cultures.
I don't undestand what you mean by your use of the word 'balanced'. I suspect that you're using it as a substitute for the word conservative.
Do you also recognize that our past is our roots, which Byrnzie agreed that we have internalized and are part of us? Do you recognize that what we did in the past was immensely relevent for that stage of evolution. And that what we are proposing is that we rise above that while also including it? Do you agree that the present is about what is appropriate for this stage of evolution, now? Evolution is about transcending AND including. Moving beyond, yet integrating where we have been.
I don't think that Byrnzie is proposing to rise above and move beyond. Maybe he is, and he is just suffering from George Bush syndrome. Byrnzie presents himself as having to knock America at every opportunity, whether it is legit or not. He does it in an extremely provacative, insendiary way that only creates more tension and division than a sharing of ideas. If he was serious about bridging gaps and creating unity, he would not unecessarily offend me with statements like "I piss on the American flag."
In short, foreigners with his dispostion and attitude make me more nationalistic and create more distance. Basically, he hurts his own cause. As I've told him before, the best thing he can do to promote his ideas is just be silent and keep to himself rather than offend and demonize those he "supposedly" wants to unite with.
I don't think that Byrnzie is proposing to rise above and move beyond. Maybe he is, and he is just suffering from George Bush syndrome. Byrnzie presents himself as having to knock America at every opportunity, whether it is legit or not. He does it in an extremely provacative, insendiary way that only creates more tension and division than a sharing of ideas. If he was serious about bridging gaps and creating unity, he would not unecessarily offend me with statements like "I piss on the American flag."
In short, foreigners with his dispostion and attitude make me more nationalistic and create more distance. Basically, he hurts his own cause. As I've told him before, the best thing he can do to promote his ideas is just be silent and keep to himself rather than offend and demonize those he "supposedly" wants to unite with.
If you had quoted my whole sentence instead of just the part of it which mentioned America then your whole post would be rendered obsolete.
You misquoted me by placing a full stop at the end of the word 'flag'.
I don't think that Byrnzie is proposing to rise above and move beyond. Maybe he is, and he is just suffering from George Bush syndrome. Byrnzie presents himself as having to knock America at every opportunity, whether it is legit or not. He does it in an extremely provacative, insendiary way that only creates more tension and division than a sharing of ideas. If he was serious about bridging gaps and creating unity, he would not unecessarily offend me with statements like "I piss on the American flag."
Gaps acknowledged. However taking steps to in any way bridge gaps is still taking these steps. Taking these steps does not mean pretending the gaps do not exist. If you find Byrnzie repelling, that does not mean he does not have a piont. He is not perfect. There are many gaps to bridge, not deny, or denigrate.
In short, foreigners with his dispostion and attitude make me more nationalistic and create more distance.
No one makes you do anything, you decide in each moment. Pointing the finger does not absolve you of the choices you make, and the consequences your own mindset gets you. Yes Byrnzie is sensationalistic, and abrasive at times. That's about him. What you do is about you. If we can't make that simple differentiation, then we've got a very basic problem in even assessing the gaps, much less bridging them.
Basically, he hurts his own cause. As I've told him before, the best thing he can do to promote his ideas is just be silent and keep to himself rather than offend and demonize those he "supposedly" wants to unite with.
I can see how he might hurt his cause with some groups of people. On the other hand, there are those who don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and can hear the truths his points entail. The truths do not minimize the abrasiveness you may feel. And too, the abrasiveness cannot minimize the truth, even if it minimizes your perception of it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't think that Byrnzie is proposing to rise above and move beyond. Maybe he is, and he is just suffering from George Bush syndrome. Byrnzie presents himself as having to knock America at every opportunity, whether it is legit or not. He does it in an extremely provacative, insendiary way that only creates more tension and division than a sharing of ideas. If he was serious about bridging gaps and creating unity, he would not unecessarily offend me with statements like "I piss on the American flag."
In short, foreigners with his dispostion and attitude make me more nationalistic and create more distance. Basically, he hurts his own cause. As I've told him before, the best thing he can do to promote his ideas is just be silent and keep to himself rather than offend and demonize those he "supposedly" wants to unite with.
Can you answer the questions from my original post to you in this thread, now? My questions were reasonable and above board.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think it would be pretty damn difficult to delineate the countours of a country from the ground. Therefore we are dealing with something which is pretty abstract. I believe that there's something wonderful in every part of the world and Scottish heritage should be celebrated alongside that of Papua New Guinea e.t.c.
I just think that in this crucial time in our history it's time for humanity to pool it's resources, both physical, intellectual and cultural, with a more imaginative and sustainable vision in mind that eclipses nationalism.
i dont... why is this time in history more crucial than any other... for instance during Britains imperial days, the 1910's...
I too believe that there is something wonderful in every part of the world, but that isnt a reason for me to NOT celebrate the past/present/future of my country... sure Costa Rica has some wonderful traits, but does that mean i shouldnt support my national team, cos fuck knows they need it
if you want some multi-national de-bordered melting pot of people then it'll never be acheived... its all about territory... people want to belong to a country usually... even people who rebel against their countries leaders, cos they rebel at the injustice they see being done to their fellow compatriots and to their land.
for me its nice to belong to Scotland, because you feel England is shitty doesnt mean i should be unpatriotic.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i dont... why is this time in history more crucial than any other... for instance during Britains imperial days, the 1910's...
for me its nice to belong to Scotland, because you feel England is shitty doesnt mean i should be unpatriotic.
I've not once said that anybody 'shouldn't' celebrate their country. I just believe that we, as a species, need to start looking beyond such things, without neccessarily letting go of them completely - or without letting go of certain aspects of them.
This time in history is more important because our environment is being flushed down the crapper.
I'm gonna convince those in power to bombard Scotland with Eastenders and Cilla Black re-runs. I'm also gonna get them to send Jamie Oliver and Mick Hucknall there.
If they disagree then I'm emigrating to the highlands and changing my name to Byrnster McFungus!
I think a lot of American people know the stories about how their ancestors travelled to wherever they settled and how they set up a life for themselves. America is not that old, so it's fairly easy to trace your history back. These settlers and immigrants started something new. They wrote a constitution and made a flag. They had some losses, some successes.
My country has been around for ages. I can probably trace back where my ancestors lived, but sitting here now I don't have a clue. I don't know what they did, or why. I don't feel fond of our flag, the contitution is 'boring'. It's all history that does not mean anything to me personally.
I think there is a difference there... Anyone agree?
I wonder if this is why people pledge allegiance to flags and all that. But I could be wrong.
Darn, it's Friday afternoon and my brain is fried. Sorry
Like a cloud dropping rain
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
Comments
Did you agree with the second part of my statement that equated Patriotism with keeping jobs "at home"?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Here's a guy who in his 80's possibly has seen both the good and the bad of America. I'm sure he's been a victim of racism at one point or another in his long life, yet here he is showing great respect for the country.
While I do think that our country has it's very dark moments and rouge elements in our governement I think the general good of the people of this country is there.
I am ashamed of what is happening in this country now. I'm a firm believer that something very wrong within members of our own government had something to do with the assassination of JFK and with the events of 9/11, but if you look down Main Street USA after those events the flag and patriotism is what in the end brought this country back together.
It's too bad in both those examples the country was just as soon divided with wars that were a result of both of those dark days in our history.
Patriotism is something that brings the country back together when bad things happen. It's not putting a yellow magnet on your car saying you support the troops. We all do, no one wants a US soldier to die in combat but you don't need a yellow ribbon to say that. I think it says a lot about our country when people feel like they HAVE to put a yellow ribbon to say they support the troops.
Patriotism to me is also questioning what the government is doing. If we let them do whatever the heck they want, than it's up to the patriots to keep them in check so this country doesn't fall apart because of actions of a government.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
"At the same time, when I see people using that argument to justify undermining of other countries, something unjustifiable is being justified."
If I misunderstood what you meant by this line my apologies, but the way I understood it, it has nothing to do with patriotism, it has to do with ignorance or arrogance.
And Im not exactly sure what you mean by going beyond your roots. But what I was saying was, you can embrace the positive aspects of your own society and culture, while still appreciating and respecting other cultures. If thats what you mean by going beyond your roots, then I agree with ya.
Okay, I wanted clarification on that, because I am with you on the part about appreciating and respecting other cultures, and I was wondering why you would limit this concept, and the growth and expansion of doing this by on one hand standing behind it, but on another hand arguing against it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not simply trying to be controversial here but I'd say that what you describe as patriotism here is something else altogether. Something more human and universal like compassion, or even a kind of stoic resolve.
Looked at a bit more philosophically, or even slightly askew - if there are patriots within every country in the world, and if these like-minded people have a tendency to behave in the same way in response to an event/tragedy like you describe, then does this not negate the individualistic and nationalistic aspect of 'Patriotism'?
I think these feelings go deeper than abstract concepts like 'country' and 'flag' and that these tags are pasted onto such basically human/universal feelings for unhealthy, and more often than not, political reasons.
By this definition I'm not a patriot either. But, I see nothing wrong with being fond of your country's culture or good doings. For example, I was born in Chile, raised in Venezuela and I'm currently living in Argentina. I feel a connection to each country, and when I was in school I would find the biggest waste of time to sing the anthem, and to pay respect to the flag and Simon Bolivar's statue and whatnot. I still think it's silly. Yet, I have to admit that when I listen to Venezuela's or Chile's anthem in a sports competition I feel something inside me, maybe nostalgia, maybe the memories of friends, relatives and good times come back all of a sudden...also since my father is Italian I have a strong connection to Italia's culture, as well. I guess I don't know where I'm from
Seriously, what I strongly disagree is with totalitarian visions, like "my country is the best". Such kind of statements are wrong to me, because you country is the best to you, given your preferences, your taste, the sociopolitical conditions of the country, the landscapes, the economic conditions of the country, the idiosyncracy of the country, and many other subjective factors (by subjetctive I refer to the weight or relevance you give to each aspect). In my case I don't feel proud of any of "my countries" per se, I can see and underline a good thing they are doing (likewise I stress the things that are not being done correctly), but I in general I tend to feel joy or whatever for personal or small collective achievements, like Italy winning the WC, Nalbandian's outstanding career, Borges' books, Neruda's poems, Venezuela's soccer improvements...
And the fact that our world is divided in countries is for administrative, organizational and practical reasons. The concept of a country (or Nation-Sate) is rather new, though, it begun to "become popular" in the end of the XIXth century, for geopolitical reasons, mainly.
Im not arguing against it. I think its great to learn, respect, and appreciate other cultures. But I can do all these things while still respecting and appreciating my culture as well. I am just not exactly sure what you mean by going beyond your roots. If you mean ditching your roots, then I dont agree with you. If you simply mean learning about other cultures and understanding that there is more out there than just your little corner of the world, then I certainly agree with you.
She made the point that our roots are internalized. We can't shake them off like old clothes.
What I'm saying is do we want to put a cap on our growth and evolution? A tree is grounded by it's roots as it expands and branches out. I would not suggest ditching one's roots, because that is plain old unhealthy. And I would not want to limit growing and moving beyond one's roots. They sky is the limit with true growth, evolution and expansion. The sky is the limit EXCEPT when people impose limits on their awareness based on their own preferences. This is not embracing roots, this is using one's roots to strangle growth. It is misusing one's roots in a sense. However each choice is valid for reasons within the individual. When others choose to strangle growth and understanding, I support their right to choose. It is what it is. However, I don't limit my own growth and understanding. Rather, I deliberately open myself up to understand truths that are not natural to me, therefore experiencing understanding beyond my roots.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Some what. I get mad when jobs are taken over seas not because an American is loosing their job but because a person is loosing their job. It also angers me that this was done because their employer wants to exploit the population of some 3rd world country in order to increase their profits.
Well I dont know what I said that makes you think I want a cap on our growth and evolution, I certainly dont want that a bit, and I certainly dont think that is a good thing. I think learning about and exploring other cultures is great for the individual, and if more people would do it, great for the world as a whole.
But if a job is sent overseas, nobody lost the job.
I do see the point of using the 3rd world country to increase profits, but by the same token for some of those places that's the only way any progress will be made. And they often need the jobs far worse than the person who lost them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Arguing the opposite didn't make sense to me, and it sounded limiting to me--like a cap on growth--rather than open.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Something I've never quite understood. To many, this word simply means the waving of a flag. To others, it represents something a lot deeper than that. What exactly? No idea. I'd like to hear somebody give me a meaningful definition.
Point taken about needing to evolve past the boundaries that divide us as humans. But there is nothing wrong with having pride in the accomplishments of your nation. Regardless if you like it or not, it is part of human history (and a positive part I might add.)
It has been the evolution of humans to divide ourselves into groups to create societies, and then work to better those societies. We didn't just start out with the advantage of satellite communications and the internet. If our ancestors had those tools, I would hope that we could have used them to bring our species together sooner. But expecting us to just exist as one from the begning is unrealistic. It's like expecting a child to have all the knowledge and wisdom of an adult.
It was just common sense, and it was the right thing to do to create groups, tribes, regions and eventually nations. It is only through the institution of governement that extrememly large groups of humans have learned to create one voice, settle disputes, define the rules by which society lives and set a direction for the future. Without the entity of a "nation", it would have been impossible to create the progress that humans have achieved.
Yes, the emotional part of our humanity has gotten the best of us throughout history and the nation has lead to bad things. Sometimes it was on purpose, sometimes it was just the folly of humans making the wrong choices. Much of it has been a learning process. We have expiremented with nations and forms of government for thousands of years. Through the process of trial and error we have come to realize what aspects are good/bad and right/wrong. We shouldn't bash ourselves or deny our past any more than an individual should.
Basically, I agree with you to an extent. But I think you aren't recognizing the contribution nations have made to the human race. I feel they have caused far more good than harm. You may disagree, but humans have conflict because that is just the nature of humans, not becuase we drew these lines and divided ourselves into countries.
As someone previously posted, there is nothing wrong with having pride in your country and those that have served and sacrificed - but you need to be able to balance your point of view and realize that no country is perfect.
Likewise, it is just as wrong of you to deny the positive aspects of our shared past (creating nations is a big part of that) as it is for some nationalistic bigot to boast and trash other nations.
It just takes a balanced perspective, and you don't seem to have that.
Thats because I misunderstood what you meant, which I already explained.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You do have a point but the condition in which theses people work in and the manner in which they are treated is criminal. Just becausetheyare offered employement for nickels a day doesn't mean that they aren't being exploited.
As far as no one losing the job, yes the person holding that position lost it to someone else. Not because of job performance but because their employer decided to increase their profit margin by paying some poor 10 year old kid a dollar a day to work 18 hours a day in horrid and unsafe conditions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I believe that conflict is an offshoot of human stupidity. Human stupidity is in the nature of humans, but I will not celebrate or encourage human stupidity.
I don't deny the positive aspects of our past. As I stated above, I believe that we should celebrate all that is good and of value in all cultures.
I don't undestand what you mean by your use of the word 'balanced'. I suspect that you're using it as a substitute for the word conservative.
I don't think that Byrnzie is proposing to rise above and move beyond. Maybe he is, and he is just suffering from George Bush syndrome. Byrnzie presents himself as having to knock America at every opportunity, whether it is legit or not. He does it in an extremely provacative, insendiary way that only creates more tension and division than a sharing of ideas. If he was serious about bridging gaps and creating unity, he would not unecessarily offend me with statements like "I piss on the American flag."
In short, foreigners with his dispostion and attitude make me more nationalistic and create more distance. Basically, he hurts his own cause. As I've told him before, the best thing he can do to promote his ideas is just be silent and keep to himself rather than offend and demonize those he "supposedly" wants to unite with.
If you had quoted my whole sentence instead of just the part of it which mentioned America then your whole post would be rendered obsolete.
You misquoted me by placing a full stop at the end of the word 'flag'.
Hey man, it offends me for you to say you would piss on anybody's flag - but especially mine.
That's your problem.
No one makes you do anything, you decide in each moment. Pointing the finger does not absolve you of the choices you make, and the consequences your own mindset gets you. Yes Byrnzie is sensationalistic, and abrasive at times. That's about him. What you do is about you. If we can't make that simple differentiation, then we've got a very basic problem in even assessing the gaps, much less bridging them.
I can see how he might hurt his cause with some groups of people. On the other hand, there are those who don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and can hear the truths his points entail. The truths do not minimize the abrasiveness you may feel. And too, the abrasiveness cannot minimize the truth, even if it minimizes your perception of it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i dont... why is this time in history more crucial than any other... for instance during Britains imperial days, the 1910's...
I too believe that there is something wonderful in every part of the world, but that isnt a reason for me to NOT celebrate the past/present/future of my country... sure Costa Rica has some wonderful traits, but does that mean i shouldnt support my national team, cos fuck knows they need it
if you want some multi-national de-bordered melting pot of people then it'll never be acheived... its all about territory... people want to belong to a country usually... even people who rebel against their countries leaders, cos they rebel at the injustice they see being done to their fellow compatriots and to their land.
for me its nice to belong to Scotland, because you feel England is shitty doesnt mean i should be unpatriotic.
I've not once said that anybody 'shouldn't' celebrate their country. I just believe that we, as a species, need to start looking beyond such things, without neccessarily letting go of them completely - or without letting go of certain aspects of them.
This time in history is more important because our environment is being flushed down the crapper.
I'm gonna convince those in power to bombard Scotland with Eastenders and Cilla Black re-runs. I'm also gonna get them to send Jamie Oliver and Mick Hucknall there.
If they disagree then I'm emigrating to the highlands and changing my name to Byrnster McFungus!
I think a lot of American people know the stories about how their ancestors travelled to wherever they settled and how they set up a life for themselves. America is not that old, so it's fairly easy to trace your history back. These settlers and immigrants started something new. They wrote a constitution and made a flag. They had some losses, some successes.
My country has been around for ages. I can probably trace back where my ancestors lived, but sitting here now I don't have a clue. I don't know what they did, or why. I don't feel fond of our flag, the contitution is 'boring'. It's all history that does not mean anything to me personally.
I think there is a difference there... Anyone agree?
I wonder if this is why people pledge allegiance to flags and all that. But I could be wrong.
Darn, it's Friday afternoon and my brain is fried. Sorry
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun