- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 58,095
- Reaction score
- 29,514
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
That's only one type. Hence the label I used "blind patriotism" as opposed to better.
Patriotism, the way I understand it, is an automatic response in favour of ones country. Isn't that what an ism is, a way of thinking?
I don't disagree.Best I can do is post 17.
With many people, yes. I've never had a side, myself. Don't like clubs. Nor am I cynical.I know, the “side” we disagree with is just always worse, isn’t it?
My take is based on my life experience. Like most Canadians I'm made uncomfortable by expressions of patriotism. We kind of understand between us that we're proud to be Canadians but we would never say so. We didn't earn the right to that pride.That's only one type. Hence the label I used "blind patriotism" as opposed to better.
Too many people can't even imagine their country doing wrong. How many Russians feel righteous about their war on Ukraine?
Is it real patriotism for Russians to blindly support the war, as it causes disaster for Ukraine, blackens their standing globally, and ruins their economy and sees enormous loss of lives from their own side as well? Is it real patriotism for Americans to support when the US does wrong, preventing democracy and so on?
The difference is loyalty to country, patriotism, and loyalty to nation, nationalism. They're different because your country is the geographic entity and your nation is the people.One of the key differences between patriotism and nationalism is that patriotism is defensive, while nationalism is offensive. Russians who support this dumbass aggressive war are expressing nationalism, not patriotism.
You sure about that? Is there anything you view as a viable criticism that is more prevalent on the left?With many people, yes. I've never had a side, myself. Don't like clubs. Nor am I cynical.
you are right. A true patriot will use his full freedoms to fight the wrong. Trump supporters displayed the opposite of patriotism for all these years, IMOThis is a harder topic than it should be. When your country is in the right, doing good, it's easy for patriotism to mean supporting the country, and for it to be negative disloyalty to oppose the country and its actions.
So for example, when the US was fighting fascism in World War II, it was patriotism to support the country and the war, and negative disloyalty to oppose it. Though some, including powerful people, did.
But it's another thing when the country does wrong. Some try to claim a simplistic definition of patriotism, blind support for the country; it's clear from one of their popular slogans, "My country, right or wrong".
But this is wrong. The patriotic thing when your country is doing wrong is to criticize it and try to get your country to do right. But the first group wrongly attacks that second group as disloyal for supporting the country 'right or wrong'.
Without that, there is no right and wrong, only groups fighting for power, with strength the only factor.
How much wrong could have been prevented if more Germans had opposed the Nazis, and WWII had been prevented? Had more Americans opposed the wrong war on Vietnam, and that war been prevented? Had more southerners opposed slavery, and the civil war been prevented?
Countries do wrong, and it needs to be understood what patriots should do when they do. That blind patriotism is the real treason. That the Germans who 'patriotically' supported a Nazi government helped traitorously devastate not only much of the world but their own country. That dissent is patriotic, when motivated to oppose wrong, and demands for blind loyalty are disloyal.
Our country thought we'd learned this, when Bush and Iraq came along, and we found we had not and the country was divided, with the same demands for blind loyalty. The was was found to be wrong in numerous ways, and there never was any accountablity. Oopsie, change the subject, forget it happened.
Dissent isn't always right. There can be good faith disagreements. But the demand for blind loyalty is not patriotism. The attacking and attempts to stifle reasonable people opposing what they think is wrong, is what's wrong. We need to recognize it's hard enough challenging wrongdoing by your country, and recognize its importance, suppressing those who try to suppress wrongly.
Too many people can't even imagine their country doing wrong. How many Russians feel righteous about their war on Ukraine?
Is it real patriotism for Russians to blindly support the war, as it causes disaster for Ukraine, blackens their standing globally, and ruins their economy and sees enormous loss of lives from their own side as well? Is it real patriotism for Americans to support when the US does wrong, preventing democracy and so on?
A criticism of the left or criticism that is more prevalent? Not sure what you're asking.You sure about that? Is there anything you view as a viable criticism that is more prevalent on the left?
The difference is loyalty to country, patriotism, and loyalty to nation, nationalism. They're different because your country is the geographic entity and your nation is the people.
That's why white nationalism is racist. White people are their nation.
And it's also why you're right about Russian nationalists.
That's what patriotism means to me.
Superpatriots, writes Michael Parenti, are those people who place national pride and American supremacy above every other public consideration, those who follow leaders uncritically, especially in their war policies abroad. Superpatriotism is the nationalistic hype propagated by officialdom, the media, and various flag-waving groups.
Parenti demonstrates how superpatriotism attaches itself to religion, sports, the military, the schools and big business. He questions whether its top politico-economic propagators are themselves really patriotic, given how they evade taxes, export our jobs, pollute our land and plunder the public treasury.
With incisive probing and a humorous touch, Parenti addresses such urgent questions as: What does it mean to love one’s country? Why is it so important to be Number One? What determines America’s “greatness?” He examines how US leaders and the corporate media fan the flames of fear to win support for huge arms budgets, global aggrandizement and the suppression of political dissent at home and abroad.
Finally, he poses an alternative to superpatriotism, arguing that the real patriots are those who care enough to educate themselves about our country’s history and its present plight. He reminds us that it is not “anti-American” to criticize unjust social conditions at home or oppose global policies pursued by our rulers. Rather it is our democratic right and patriotic duty to do so.
Sorry, man. I didn’t mean that as an allegation.A criticism of the left or criticism that is more prevalent? Not sure what you're asking.
And, uh, yeah, I'm sure. I know myself. You don't.
That's just a long-winded renaming of a term we're already familiar with; jingoism.That's the one, bad type. Perhaps it would help you to see the better type from this description of a book titled Superpatriotism about the difference.
No offense taken.Sorry, man. I didn’t mean that as an allegation.
You’re right and the funny thing is I remember when it was the right that accused the left of that (to be fair, I do recall that some on the left used to argue that majority rule was tyranny).No offense taken.
Here, this may answer your question.
The left claims the right hates democracy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?