Pharyngula

Posted by: Bill Gascoyne | May 31, 2010 12:14 AM

"My country, right or wrong", is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober"
G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | May 31, 2010 12:17 AM

"That's why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well. We also want it to do good." -- Al Franken, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"

Posted by: Zeno | May 31, 2010 12:19 AM

Now I'm going to have to dig out those back issues of Gerald L. K. Smith's "The Cross and the Flag" and do a blog post about them. Smith was an unregenerate fascist and racist who wanted to see the U.S. turned into a right-wing Christian theocracy. In 1972 he issued a blast against the "treason machine" that was going to turn America into a soviet satellite. Today he's be right at home on Fox, except that he would gripe about Glenn Beck being too wishy-washy.

Posted by: andorus | May 31, 2010 12:25 AM

There's a distinction to be made between patriotism and nationalism. I think the mindless obedience you're describing here is really nationalism--that notion that your country is right and just in all it does, particularly compared to others. Patriotism, or simply being proud to be from a country, is different; it doesn't mean you support everything blindly and without question. I totally agree that nationalism and BLIND patriotism are not good at all, but it's okay to support the US and be proud to be an American while regarding it critically and making your voice and your views heard.

Posted by: montygreenman | May 31, 2010 12:34 AM

Damn, that's a good post. It's always easy, and dangerous to assume the status quo.

Over here though, they talk about things being 'unaustralian'. I'm so very sick of that word!

Posted by: glenister_m | May 31, 2010 12:40 AM

I remember similar emails not long after 911. One organization I belong to, sent out an email critical of those who didn't support the Gulf War, making some comment about being anti-American. Even though I'm Canadian, I responded to the email, pointing out that the people that didn't support the war are not anti-American...free speech and all that. Oddly enough no one emailed me back, and for the most part it was ignored, unchallenged.

It did remind me of that famous quote from Goering, about calling pacifists unpatriotic, etc.

Posted by: idiotiddidit#5116d | May 31, 2010 12:46 AM

It seems to me that the same impulse behind patriotism also drives the fanatical need in some to support the local team in whatever sport.

Some people have blind, lifelong allegiance to a team despite the fact that nearly every player on the team either played for a competing team in the past or will in the near future. That is, the players have less invested in the team than the fans.

Posted by: Topaca | May 31, 2010 12:49 AM

Patriotism is even a holier cow than religion. Lots of people that have no issues in accepting the idea than religion is not that great will have a fit when you start questioning the concept of patriotism...

Posted by: chaseacross | May 31, 2010 12:53 AM

*effect, not effort

Posted by: chaseacross | May 31, 2010 12:57 AM

@subbie

Quite right. As Mark Twain put it: "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | May 31, 2010 1:03 AM

Usagichan, I'm inclined to utter a "hear, hear!". You get born in a country (or tribe, or indeed family) by blind chance. You've done nothing to 'deserve' it, so how can you take pride in the fact?

I can sorta-kinda see being proud of your family's history, so I suppose that could kinda-ish extend to the country… but it's very much vicarious. I'm certainly *pleased* to have been born in Britain since it provided me with many benefits and privileges, and although my family hasn't provided an especially huge set of benefits (poor eyesight, weak hip joints, decent brain, spiffing accent) I'm still pleased to be of it. After all I wouldn't be me otherwise and then where would we be? Up feces slough sans oar, that's where.

What I'm *proud* of is what I've done by my efforts, with all the help and tuition and support and friendship that has backed me up at every step.

The people that could be proud to be American were the original rebels - sorry, freedom fighters - sorry, terrrorists, whatever since they *chose* to break free from what they saw as a bad system, and then went on to make a fine effort at founding a better one. Yes, they screwed up lots but they tried, hard.

Those that just happened to be born there… nah, you don't get to be proud of that mundane fact. Thankful maybe, but not proud. You can however earn pride by being the best you can manage, wherever you live.

Posted by: subbie | May 31, 2010 1:07 AM

@chase

Thank you! I quite like that quote.

Posted by: Usagichan | May 31, 2010 1:13 AM

@ chaseacross

I suppose my reaction would be that given that you have presented Patriotism as a choice, how strange it is that the majority of people (where there are no other driving factors such as poverty) chose to remain identified to the country of their birth.

My experience of Patriotism is slightly different from the benevolent picture you present - I have found that it invariably asserts the superiority of the Home nation over all others - you see it as pride, but I have found that pride is so easily subverted to contempt, distrust and intolerance.

In fact for me the question is less what I think of Patriotism (although in the cultural context in which I was raised I find it deeply disturbing) and more for what in practice the term is being used.

Posted by: Perspexo | May 31, 2010 1:21 AM

Fear seems to be one of the main motivating factors behind people holding nationalistic and religious beliefs.
The religious fear death and its consequences and the nationalistic fear change in the status of the group they identify with.
In the 50's we get fear of the red menace and one country under god and today its a fear of hispanic immigration and muslims. Where that's leading we can see every day.

Posted by: Usagichan | May 31, 2010 1:27 AM

@John #26

Yup. And the vegetation and wildlife and climate. That's patriotism. Those things can be hard or easy, but never wrong.

So are the American rocks, vegetation and climate more admirable than the Chinese or Brazilian or Turkish ones? I'm with you in being

strongly biased in favour of Life,

but what I don't get is how one set is intrinsically better than another based on geographical location? Why not be in favour of it all?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 31, 2010 1:28 AM

Sinclair Lewis is one of my favourite authors and not enough people have read It Can't Happen Here.

I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion.

If what's going on here in the U.S. embodies the spirit of the xian religion, more people should be waking up to what a rotten scam it is.

When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, there was a common slogan thrown around by defenders of the status quo: "My country, right or wrong."

I remember that too. It was often allied with the "might is right" sentiment. Frightening stuff. Blind obedience is never a good thing nor is tunnel vision, whether it's aimed towards countries or gods.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | May 31, 2010 1:30 AM

I mean genocide not genonide. headdesk.

Posted by: Hairhead | May 31, 2010 1:43 AM

The best comment I ever saw about patriotism was from MAD magazine in the 1960's:

"A super-patriot is someone who loves his country, but hates 95% of the people living in it."

Posted by: Xenithrys | May 31, 2010 2:01 AM

Philip Roth's "The plot against America" explores these ideas in novel form. Lindbergh becomes president and takes the US into WW2 on the other side. It's fascinating. I was happy to dismiss it as an entertaining, if scary, novel until I learned the US had cabinet-approved plans to invade Canada all through the 30s, and even in early 1939 had a plan to annex Halifax (discussed briefly, with sources, in Latimer, J. 2007: "1812 War with America". Belknap, Harvard).

Posted by: bastion of sass | May 31, 2010 2:07 AM

The same people who proclaim "my country, right or wrong" are often the very same people who regularly punish their children for even minor disobedience, often by spanking or even beating them--which is for the child's own good, of course.

Or they abandon or shun a child if the child is "wrong" by coming out as gay or atheist.

Why do these people love their country more than they love their own children?

Posted by: eyespy | May 31, 2010 2:19 AM

I fucking hate America.

I fucking hate every nation-state on earth.

I fucking hate every fucking idiot who thinks that race is anything other than human.

I fucking hate every single fucking thing that prevents us from total human unity and the fact that we will eventually have to get off this fucking rock if we're to survive, and at the current pace of scientific advancement (having been completely arrested by fucking religious idiots) it ain't gonna fucking happen in the billion years we've got left before we boil off into the ether.

Look how long it's taken us to get this fucking far, with fucking superstition and fucking mythology confounding every step along the way to a scientific understanding of a universe governed entirely by scientific principles.

I've commented here before, I understand the collegial academic tenor and I rarely tend to the "vulgar" or "obscene," but I'm fucking fed up.

These fucking douchenozzles are going be the end of life as we know it.

Our greatx1000000 ancestors will be begging these fucking mouth-breathing troglodytes to help to build a real ark to get us off this increasingly hostile planet and they'll still be waiting for fucking jeebus to rapture them up to heaven.

I'm sorry about the rant, but I just found out that my best friends are going to raise their children catholic. This is apparently because the priest of their local parish told them that you don't have to believe in jeebus as lord and savior to go to heaven and that the catholic concept of god is more inclusive than other forms of xtianity.

Wow. Those fuckers even lie about their fucking lies.

AAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: akiwiinoz | May 31, 2010 2:27 AM

Subbie, didn't George W Bush say something similar to Decatur? IIRC, "In fucking with other countries we are always right".

Posted by: jafafahots | May 31, 2010 2:34 AM

A country is made of three things. Real estate, government and people.

Everyone loves the beauty of their country because every country IS beautiful.
Everyone loves their family and community because that's what humans do, and we want the best for them.
Everyone strives to have what they see as desirable be reflected in and advanced by their government. Sometimes to reasonably good effect, sometimes not, for varying reasons.

Patriotism is stupid. If you define it as simply those things I've listed above, it's stupid because the definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Calling yourself a "patriot" is essentially just saying "I'm in support of Good."
Well no shit. Everybody thinks that.

If you define patriotism as something MORE than the above, it's at best a lazy exercise in self-congratulation or picking a team to root for, and at worst destructive nationalism.

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 2:43 AM

PZ:

I usually complain about religion here, but today I have to add another target: patriotism.

PZ, I have to disagree with you. I think you are mis-defining patriotism.

Here's what I mean (quoting you again):

[T]o marry religion to our government is antithetical to its founding principles, and even to regard those founding principles as inviolate and somehow imbued with godly authority is a betrayal. ... Even at my young age, that always seemed insane: if my country is wrong, shouldn't I want to change it?

Well, yes, of course you should want to change it. This is patriotism as defined by the progressive. The only people who disagree with you are people who think our country is the best it has ever been and that morals cannot be separated from God. Here in the US, we define those as the evangelical conservatives who have taken over the political dialog in our country, and I think you are very right to question them.

The people you wish to distinguish yourself from aren't so much patriotic as they are jingoistic and nationalist. That's the real source of the confusion here: the lack of ability to understand the difference between free speech and jingoism, and between patriotism and nationalism. It isn't worth removing yet another useful word from our lexicon because you don't want to be associated with idiots who don't know what it means.

You again:

Question religion. But also question your government. It wasn't founded by gods.

You are therefore patriotic because one of the founding principles of our society is that not only should government be questioned, it deserves to be by its very nature, and because you are interested in making this country (and the people who live in it) the best it can be. Don't beat up a word because other people use it wrongly.

subbie:

So, I say with pride: "My country, right or wrong!" Then add with humility: "But if wrong, correct it."

That's the spirit! Now, if only we could all agree that there is a problem that needs to be corrected...

Posted by: Rorschach | May 31, 2010 2:49 AM

Got another one :

“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.”

George Bernard Shaw

I'm not in the slightest patriotic, I think living some time of your life away from the place you were born and raised helps with that.
Obviously we see the things we grow up with as the gold standard, and judge other places by that standard, but that's just human I guess.And short-sighted.
Your religion and what country you will feel is the bestest evah really just depends on where in the world your ticket was drawn.
Heidegger called that Geworfenheit.

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 3:00 AM

Rorschach:

“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.”

Interestingly, this is closer to the accepted definition to patriotism than the one for nationalism. When did we start to let the idiots control the words we use?

Posted by: Nepenthe | May 31, 2010 3:10 AM

Eyespy, chill the fuck out. Over the previous billion years, we've gone from being prokaryotes to smashing atoms. (And I use "we" in the loose sense of "things that are alive".) I think we'll be okay.

Religion, especially in its current incarnation, is nothing compared to deep time.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | May 31, 2010 3:19 AM

#52

It would be nice if you didn't link to a bunch of irrelevant topics.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 31, 2010 3:31 AM

eyespy:

If we don't ditch superstition in favor of science soon we will watch that billion years pass by in a relative eyeblink and will succumb to the universe which wants nothing more than to kill us in the most ghastly way possible

How long do you think you're going to live? Humans will die out eventually, something else will be ascendant. (Personally, I'd put my money on tool using arboreal octopuses.) That's not going to happen for a very, very long time. *shrug*

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | May 31, 2010 3:40 AM

<rightwinger>
If you don't agree with me, then you hate America!
</rightwinger>

For those of you who insist that the US was founded on "Christian Principles"^TM: nowhere in the United States Constitution (PDF file) can the word 'God' be found! More here.

Posted by: Demonhype | May 31, 2010 3:51 AM

patriotism => nationalism => jingoism

liberal theism => moderate theism => fundamentalism

My mom gives me this crap, but about Ohio. "Why would you want to leave Ohio, you were BORN here" as if that should answer everything. As if you are beholden to mindlessly adore whatever chunk of earth your mother happened to be sitting on when she squeezed you out and that once born in a certain geography one must, by necessity, stay there until they die there. I have repeated my litany of personal and impersonal reasons I dislike Ohio and wish to leave it, but to no avail. She can't imagine how I could possibly want to leave the place where I was born.

As to patriotism, in some circles the term seems to have evolved to mean "love of America specifically". I actually ran into some idiot who accused some foreign people living in a foreign land of not being patriotic because they didn't love and support America and all America's actions. And another such moron who claimed that he couldn't see how it was possible for anyone living in another country to be patriotic because, according to him, patriotism means you love America.

Liberal Christians and fundy Christians both use the same word to describe themselves: Christian. The only problem is the liberal types tend to be circumspect and un-obnoxious, while the fundy types broadcast their views in direct connection with Christianity. The same thing seems to have happened to the word 'patriotism', with the people identifying as patriots the most publicly and loudly have kind of hijacked the term explicitly for their own agenda.

And I'm with the type that find the concept of patriotism, however mild, to be strange and perhaps even absurd--certainly, as one above put it, as a more sacred cow even than religion. I don't love my country, I love certain ideas and values, and I am not dedicated to the idea that only my own country can ever practice or embody those ideas and values, or to the idea that my country will always embody those values, or to the idea that my country always deserves my mindless support and adoration. Or the idea that every military action commanded by my country is necessarily in defense of those values.

And as to the holy cow thing, it is definitely invoked exactly like a religious doctrine. I'll have someone insist--absolutely INSIST--I take an active part in celebrating the soldiers for defending our freedom. If I simply say, "well, I don't think they are defending our freedom at all but the profit margins of the upper one percent, and it's a nice gesture but I feel they are deluded if they think they are defending our freedom and I wish they wouldn't be doing what they are doing. So I see no reason why I have to get involved in a celebration of what I don't agree with." Well, at that point I get screamed at and called anti-patriotic by every Starship Trooper douchebag who thinks that enlisting immediately makes you a superior human being by default and entitles you to the same kind of uncritical reverence the religious give to their priests. I have also been told that I should by law have my citizenship revoked and be forcibly sent to Saudi Arabia or something, if I won't join them in their beloved Freedom Dance. Anything less is Not Patriotic and therefore Anathema.

And I have also been told that I am not allowed to dislike or disagree with the military unless I have enlisted--just like religious nuts like to say that unless you hold several PhD's in theology, koine greek, archaeology, etc. etc. then you are not allowed to make a judgment on Christianity. But apparently those who have not enlisted but mindlessly adore the military are totally justified in their judgment, as are the millions of believers who haven't even read their Bibles to begin with much less attained several theologically relevant PhD's. To them, the one group hates their country, the other group is simply Expressing Patriotism.

What I'm saying is it works like this--if you can't support the war, at least support the troops...what, you don't support the war, you are spitting on our troops! On one hand you should disassociate the troops from their commanded actions, on the other hand the two are one and to question one is to question the other. This kind of attitude props up all manner of war crime and atrocity, and has throughout history. And all of that is propped up by this absurd do-not-question sacred cow they call Patriotism. And I get it from Patriots of all stripes, from the mildest up to the most fundamentalist. So I have a hard time differentiating between an honest "patriot" and a jingoist/nationalist/super-patriot when I get the same kind of knee-jerk hysteria from all of them.

It is exactly the same kind of thing that happens when a bunch of people you are with decide not only to pray, but to make everyone hold hands so as to force at least implicit support of their sacred cow--and if you back out and say "I'd rather not participate", YOU become the bad guy who is raising a scene, YOU are the one who is hurting THEM. Never mind the fact that they were the ones who put you in a corner and tried to force you to express views that you don't agree with, and they are continuing that very behavior with their hysterical abuse.

I get the same thing with the term "anti-semetic". All I have to do is disagree with anyone Jewish about anything or question any action of Israel, and instead of creating a legitimate counter-argument to show that I am mistaken, I get screamed at and called "anti-semetic" and told that I would clearly love to fire up the ovens all over again. Because, obviously, anything less than uncritical celebration and support of Israel is tantamount to the Holocaust. Go figure.

It's an infuriating attitude to encounter, as it does not encourage or welcome debate or discussion but is intent on deflecting it and reinforcing it's own position. It's an attitude that necessarily silences opposition by force, demonizing the opposing viewpoint using little more than emotional buzz words and making the voicing of an opposing opinion often a costly situation--kind of like what the Christian culture has done to atheism. And it's a dangerous attitude to have, because it lends itself to some nasty extremism--hence the comments above stating that even if you separate Patriotism from Nationalism/Jingoism, the former becomes a shield and a validation for the latter, much like liberal/moderate Xianity is to fundy xianity.

Simple equation: find something that carries emotional baggage to lots of people, tie it to questionable practices you want to engage in, label it all "Patriotism" and let the fun begin! This fun recipe can be adapted to all manner of dubious behaviors and ideologies!

Posted by: and7barton | May 31, 2010 4:23 AM

Quote - Usagichan | May 31, 2010 12:37 AM
........I haven't held that opinion since I was an obnoxious teenager (referring to Americans as Colonials in my more polite moments, and as Septics (it's Cockney rhyming slang) in my more chauvinistic fits).

"Septics" - LOVE IT.
Being a Cockney myself, henceforth that word replaces my usual "Yanquees"

Posted by: briclondon | May 31, 2010 4:39 AM

This kind of thing always reminds me of Mr Podsnap's magnificent defence of the British Constitution, bestowed upon us by a wise Providence:

'And Do You Find, Sir,' pursued Mr Podsnap, with dignity, 'Many Evidences that Strike You, of our British Constitution in the Streets Of The World's Metropolis, London, Londres, London?'

The foreign gentleman begged to be pardoned, but did not altogether understand.

'The Constitution Britannique,' Mr Podsnap explained, as if he were teaching in an infant school.' We Say British, But You Say Britannique, You Know' (forgivingly, as if that were not his fault). 'The Constitution, Sir.'

The foreign gentleman said, 'Mais, yees; I know eem.'
...

'It merely referred,' Mr Podsnap explained, with a sense of meritorious proprietorship, 'to Our Constitution, Sir. We Englishmen are Very Proud of our Constitution, Sir. It Was Bestowed Upon Us By Providence. No Other Country is so Favoured as This Country.'

'And ozer countries? -' the foreign gentleman was beginning, when Mr Podsnap put him right again.

'We do not say Ozer; we say Other: the letters are "T" and "H;" You say Tay and Aish, You Know; (still with clemency). The sound is "th" - "th!"'

'And OTHER countries,' said the foreign gentleman. 'They do how?'

'They do, Sir,' returned Mr Podsnap, gravely shaking his head; 'they do - I am sorry to be obliged to say it - AS they do.'

'It was a little particular of Providence,' said the foreign gentleman, laughing; 'for the frontier is not large.'

'Undoubtedly,' assented Mr Podsnap; 'But So it is. It was the Charter of the Land. This Island was Blest, Sir, to the Direct Exclusion of such Other Countries as - as there may happen to be. And if we were all Englishmen present, I would say,' added Mr Podsnap, looking round upon his compatriots, and sounding solemnly with his theme, 'that there is in the Englishman a combination of qualities, a modesty, an independence, a responsibility, a repose, combined with an absence of everything calculated to call a blush into the cheek of a young person, which one would seek in vain among the Nations of the Earth.'
- Charles Dickens 'Our Mutual Friend' (1867)

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | May 31, 2010 4:48 AM

It would appear that Nationalism...Patriotism and verbose religious declarations are similar aspects of the same coin.

Any trait taken to excessive zeal is guaranteed to come off the rails...because the centre of gravity changes place with the momentum.

Balance is ever more difficult to maintain when instead of prudence the foot crunches down harder on the accelerator!

Distinctions raised in word choice and meaning are all very well and probably accurate and valid in context ...but the bunnies that hop ever higher to those various beats fail spectacularly to understand the language sufficiently to differentiate the subtleties.
Idiomatic usage does the rest.

Down South Alabama way it might well be Patriotic to to be 'Dixie' born and bread as is would be in Virginia or Tennessee...in Texas love your god then your country then your family...placing religion above and Patriotism as beholden to and dependant on the dogma.
The damp backwoods of Georgia are by one definition Nationalistic especially because KKK rule the roost and God is not far away in all their boasts.

But the bunnies that hop see not the differance.
Because in the main in the practicality and the execution there is no difference.

Instead of "In god we trust"

Maybe...

"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"

"Bide within the Law you must, in perfect Love and perfect Trust.
Live you must and let to live, fairly take and fairly give."

The Wiccan rede is just as valid and displays more 'balance' then a thousand pontification from ten thousand religious nationalist Patriots.

But maybe 'balance' is not what is wished for!
Because balance means compromise...and 'compromise' is not in the relevant lexicon.

Posted by: Nancy New | May 31, 2010 6:06 AM

Comment #66 "...Reminds me of Heinlein...

Yes, YES! And here we are, in the midst of what he imagined would be "The Crazy Years..." and are we not?

Posted by: mattheath | May 31, 2010 6:24 AM

No mention of Orwell yet? That's insane.
Great stuff on progressive, non-Jingoistic patriotism in The Lion and the Unicorn. As he has it the point isn't about thinking your country is better than others, but wanting to make it better than it is because (irrational as it may be) you grew up with it and you love it.

Notes on Nationalism is good too. It deals with "X right or wrong" in the general case, and the differences between this and the sort of patriotism he approves of.

I don't completely agree with Orwell on patriotism; he takes it a bit to much for granted that "that which I think of as home" will line up neatly with national boundaries. I do agree that people having particular affection for places can be a good thing, though. Trying to fight for a better world in the abstract is too tiring a concept. "This is my bit and I care (particularly) about it being good and fair" is manageable.

I think the problem is the temptation to turn your love of a place into a fact about the world rather than about yourself. That's also where it gets like religion, convincing yourself that reality cares about what you care about.

(Full disclosure: I don't currently live in my homeland. I don't know whether that makes my views more or less relevant.)

Posted by: Aquaria | May 31, 2010 6:49 AM

My mom gives me this crap, but about Ohio. "Why would you want to leave Ohio, you were BORN here" as if that should answer everything. As if you are beholden to mindlessly adore whatever chunk of earth your mother happened to be sitting on when she squeezed you out and that once born in a certain geography one must, by necessity, stay there until they die there.

It could have been worse. You could have been born or transplanted to Texas. A lot of people here are worse about lovin' Texas than they are about USA! USA! USA!

In my local grocery store, I know there are pans, cookie cutters, condiment platters, cheese, crackers and tortilla chips in the shape of Texas for me to buy.

No car dealership would dare not fly the Texas flag, and that flag shows up on the most amazing things, beyond bumper stickers and party plates/napkins.

How many states have shrines to an event exclusive to their state history?

And on top of that you'll get the, "How could you leave Texas?" said as if you just shat on the parlor floor, if you mention leaving.

I'll take your situation, any day.

Posted by: mailvijaykishore | May 31, 2010 6:53 AM

I particularly like this quote by Emma Goldman:

"Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others."

I hate the concept of patriotism to the core

Posted by: llewelly | May 31, 2010 7:01 AM

jcmartz.myopenid.com | May 31, 2010 3:40 AM:

For those of you who insist that the US was founded on "Christian Principles"TM: nowhere in the United States Constitution (PDF file) can the word 'God' be found!

THAT DOCUMENT IS THE PRODUCT OF A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY AND A SATANIST COMMUNIST HOAX!!

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 7:10 AM

mailvijaykishore:

I particularly like this quote by Emma Goldman:

Does Emma Goldman get to define what patriotism is, to the exclusion of all other possible meanings?

I hate the concept of patriotism to the core

I also hate the particular concept of patriotism Emma Goldman defines, but patriotism need not be like that at all.

Imagine you are on a football team. (Which kind, I don't care, and if you don't like sports [like me], remember that this is your imagination.) There are two ways to display pride in your team: you can either be a complete ass and constantly deride other teams as being inferior, be excessively rough in play, cheat, or otherwise engage in poor sportsmanship, etc.; or, you can treat the game as competition with both sides contributing to the fun and improvement of all players.

Similarly, when you are born in a country, you will have some sort of cultural connection with it, however tenuous. It's very normal to want to improve the country you live in, and you may experience a sort of pride when you do so. Heck, you might even say your country is better than another at some particular thing as a form of healthy competition. But when you are so proud that you will forcibly convert others to your country's values, you are like the asshole playing football with bad sportsmanship.

I keep saying this, and I will annoy others with it. A word is just a word, so let's not attach too much emotion to any particular one. Concepts are much more important.

Posted by: itsgood2bchildfree | May 31, 2010 7:27 AM

I will never be patriotic. It would take very little to push me into committing acts of treason against "my country" if I felt I didn't have the freedom to express myself, think for myself, have my own religious beliefs or lack thereof, and be protected from tyrants looking to take those freedoms away from me.

I hate my country, Canada. I do not want to be known as a Canadian. That is just a coincidence of my birth, and I don't have the means to just pick up and move to a different country, so fuck off if that is your retarded, glib answer, okay?

Canadians are too obsessed with the bloodsport of hockey, eh? Canadians consider Tim Horton's Donuts to be a national institution, eh? Canadians revere a talentless ex-hockey goon, whose only talent seems to be a bottomless prejudice against everything post-1940, (Don Cherry) to be a national treasure, eh? Canadians have unjustifiable hate crime laws that punish simple speech, eh? Canadians still acquiesce to and kiss the ass of the queen of England, eh? Canadians are traitors to their Kyoto commitments, eh? Canadians come in two varieties: obsequious American sycophants, or mindless hockey goons.

There are some things I like about Canada. Gays and lesbians have more rights here than they would in Turkey or the majority of U.S. states. Fewer racists go flying off the handle if a person from another country speaks their first language in a public setting. Canadians seem to be less prejudice to people of non-white skin colour than Americans or the French. Canada seems to be less prone to religious or racial violence than most of the world.

If my rights were taken away, I would commit treason to restore them (since in essence it would be treason to oppose the dictator.) I would not be afraid to lose my life in the struggle.

No, guys and gals, patriotism does not mean you love your country even when it's wrong. That kind of love is reserved for families, friends and pets. I will never tell Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who would rescind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if he had the parliamentary support, that I "love Canada" even though he is turning it into a dictatorship that betrays it's environmental commitments. I would not give him that ascension. The thing that I loved would no longer exist at that point. I would have nothing to lose.

I believe in the principle of non-violence, so you just can't tell me I am advocating a violent overthrow of the government just because they pass a law I don't like. I'm vigilant enough to know when the line has been crossed from democracy to dictatorship. Others are too uneducated and just plain stupid and distracted by pop culture to know.

Be "patriotic" to certain kinds of ideals, principles, ethics, and reasoning. Be "patriotic" to science, to the theory of evolution. Be "patriotic" to the separation of church and state. Things that transcend borders, ethnic and cultural divides, and languages.

But don't tell your local house representative that you would still love America even if they installed a religious dictator and declared America a theocracy. America would no longer exist. You would be "patriotic" to everything you claim to hate.

Posted by: TheCalmOne | May 31, 2010 7:45 AM

Maybe it's time for another wave of anti-hero, anti-war movies from Hollywood. What happened to them?

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 7:51 AM

TheCalmOne:

Maybe it's time for another wave of anti-hero, anti-war movies from Hollywood. What happened to them?

After 9/11, it was suddenly unpatriotic and un-American to be anti-war. What about you? Do you hate the troops or something, buddy? I bet you're secretly a pinko. Yeah, you're in cahoots with those terrorists, aren't ya? You want money for a movie? Fugetaboutit!

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2010 7:56 AM

yeah, I don't get patriotism, either. But then, I come from a country that's currently allergic to any expressions thereof...

anyway, being proud of one's geographical location is fucking silly. Having to swear allegiance to one's geographical location to be able to have a voice in whether and how the schools your children will go to, the roads you're driving on, etc. will be funded and run is incredibly idiotic, as well.

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 8:07 AM

Jadehawk:

anyway, being proud of one's geographical location is fucking silly.

You know, I never thought of patriotism as being tied to a geographical location, but when you put it that way - well, it is very silly. For me, it's always been about less-concrete things like ideals and values. It isn't even really about a particular form of government, either. I've never understood what makes people start singing a national anthem and waving a flag about like it matters.

Posted by: Q.E.D | May 31, 2010 8:11 AM

With apologies to Samuel Johnson:

Patriotism is the first refuge of the scoundrel

I find US-style patriotism disturbing. It's not very different from religion: it is a tribal ideology. It is used by people in power to manufacture consent by short circuiting critical thinking, debate and democracy (remember the percentage of patriotic Americans who believed Bush and Rumsfeld's lie that Iraq was behind 9/11?)

The pledge of allegiance, think about it: enforcing children to participate in a group loyalty oath to a flag and reciting "under god" is just creepy. Imagine the kids in brown shirts and see how you feel about it. Most western nations don't do that to their children.

Honestly I can't think of a positive way to use the word "patriotic". Maybe for courageous soldiers but even then if they have bee commanded into bad situations for bad reasons then their patriotism has been abused and thus not a "good thing".

Posted by: Joe Fogey | May 31, 2010 8:22 AM

Patriotism is a problem for the left - there is a sense in which we have let it become the property of the right, and in England, where I live, of the extreme right.

When Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" he was talking not about a natural attachment to neighbours and earth but to the sort of power-seeking flag-waving the right go in for.

Progressives should perhaps give some thought to defining a left-wing patriotism that is not exclusive or chauvinistic. I am proud that Britain has been a refuge for the persecuted over the centuries (the USA has no monopoly on that count), of the struggle for democracy that has left us a democracy, of our health service which means no one here need worry where the money's going to come from when they need medical help, and of the kindness that British people often show to each other and to strangers.

Of course these things need defending all the time, often against people who claim to be patriotic, and there are also things I don't like about England and Britain. A progressive patriotism would allow for both pride and criticism.

Posted by: marcosvoc | May 31, 2010 8:28 AM

Here in Brazil, during the dictatorship period (1960s and 1970s) there was a slogan that the militar government used all the time:

"Brasil: ame-o ou deixe-o" ("Brazil: love it or leave").

It's more or less the same idea of "my country, right or wrong". It's as if you only had the right to be a brazilian citizen if you had an unquestioning love for the country and its government.
At least now things are different and it seems like democracy is here to stay.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 31, 2010 8:32 AM

QED@93

"Patriotism is the first refuge of the scoundrel"

Was Ambrose Bierce's amended version of Samuel Johnson, who said it was the last refuge.

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 8:42 AM

Knockgoats:

Because dictatorship and theocracy are hateful wherever they occur?

Obviously. I was talking about the thing which changed, not that which changed it. If I didn't love something, then I would have no reason to hate what it has become.

Yes, it's sophistry. But it's for a good cause, I swear!

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 31, 2010 9:05 AM

I do think reflexive patriotism is very odd. The notion that you owe a moral debt of love and allegiance to nation-state X, merely because you happened to be born there, is rather silly; the notion that one should be "proud" of having been born a citizen of nation-state X rather than nation-state Y, as if being born were some sort of achievement, is even sillier. I find it as incomprehensible as I find people's reflexive allegiance to sports teams. Being born somewhere is not an achievement, and it ought not to define your rights or obligations, whether in law or in morality. For the same reason, I'm opposed in principle to immigration quotas, protectionism. and the like; I believe in free movement, both of goods and people, across national boundaries, and I oppose arbitrary nationalistic barriers.

I think there are many good things about my country. I would say that the British system of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, and the British legal and judicial system, are in many respects achievements to be admired; they're far from perfect, and indeed there are lots of ways in which I would change the British political order if I could, but it is better, on balance, than the political systems which prevail in much of the world. This could perhaps be termed a considered patriotism; on a rational assessment, there are things about my country which I think are good and worth keeping.

But I don't know whether that can be called "patriotism", in the common usage of that term: and it should certainly never be allowed to lead us to intellectual dishonesty or bias. For example, there are plenty of thoroughly contemptible things in Britain's past: the slave trade, the Opium Wars, the East India Company, the Amritsar Massacre, and so on. We should not lie to ourselves about those things, and I would never pretend that Britain has always been some sort of paragon of perfect virtue merely because it is my country.

In terms of owing allegiance to the state, I'd say such allegiance must be (a) freely given, and (b) conditional. For example, if I were ever to be elected to Parliament, I would have no moral difficulty in taking the oath of allegiance: "I affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law." But this allegiance is not something that I would accord merely because I happened to be born in the UK; the Queen has a claim on my allegiance because I choose to give it to her, not because of where I happened to be born. If I had been born in Zimbabwe, I would not consider myself to owe any moral allegiance whatsoever to the regime of President Mugabe, for instance, because it is a morally bankrupt state that does not deserve anyone's allegiance. My allegiance to the British state is thus vested in a rational assessment that the existence of the British state is, on balance, a net good for the world, despite its many failings. And my allegiance is likewise conditional; I would cease to bear any moral allegiance to Britain if it were to fall under the rule of a fascist or other dictatorial government, for instance, or if another situation arose in which the continued existence of the British state was no longer a net good for humanity.

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 9:16 AM

Walton:

In terms of owing allegiance to the state, I'd say such allegiance must be (a) freely given, and (b) conditional.

This is, of course, the idea of the social contract. Where we might differ in its interpretation is that you could tend to agree more with Locke than I, and I could tend to agree with Rousseau than you. Where we would both tend to agree (along with most others who read this) is that the allegiance is to the ideal of the social contract, not who or what holds to the other end of it.

"Patriotism" as the word tends to be used these days is actually something of a political throwback to feudalism, which is also ironically where the word itself came from. Somehow, we have forgotten the notion of the social contract (again) and have started fighting for turf like vassals once did over status. It's rather sick to watch social philosophy devolve like this.

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2010 9:22 AM

I usually complain about religion here, but today I have to add another target: patriotism.

The christofascist extremists have been having a hard time claiming ownership of "patriotism".

They openly hate the present USA, secular democracy, the Enlightenment, and a long list of other groups. They are mostly xian Dominionists who want to set up a theocratic dictatorship.

It is become blindingly obvious that a lot of god babbling and religion in the USA is merely a cover and excuse for oligarches, right wing extremists, and for various sociopaths to obtain power, money and sex with children.

The fundies created the New Atheists and people are leaving the xian religion at the rate of ca. a million per year. Being poor and living in a dictatorship of evil religious kooks as the New Afghanistan of the Americas is going to be a hard sell.

Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | May 31, 2010 9:37 AM

itsgood2bchildfree:

No, guys and gals, patriotism does not mean you love your country even when it's wrong. That kind of love is reserved for families, friends and pets.

In reading the above thread this is precisely what I thought of. My mother is nothing special. She is not better or worse than your mother or any other woman or man on the planet. Yet she is my mother and, admittedly due to her largely selfless actions for me, I love my mother and not yours and not anyone else on the planet.**

I see true patriotism quite like my love for my husband - is he intrinsically better than any other man on the planet? Not in essence, but I've chosen him and love him for my own reasons. And because I love and respect him, I will not allow him to say or do stupid shit. He will be the best man he can, because I love him.*

I'll agree with deriamis (and Walton) - it's basic social contract and as long as the contract doesn't change - with both parties evaluating the other - then we shouldn't have a problem. Should of course is different than will - so we need people like PZ and some of the commentors here to pull it back into alignment on occasion.

*The reverse is, of course, also true. He tries to stop me for saying stupid shit and won't allow me to rant unchallenged. I'm a better and smarter person for it.
**beyond basic love for all man-kind, warm fuzzy, blah blah blah.

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 9:57 AM

No-one has yet demonstrated, or even tried to demonstrate, that the alleged "good" forms of patriotism actually have any benefits whatever. Rather like religion.

Erm, yes I did. Several times, as a point of fact. The problem here, I think, is that you aren't defining your terms the way I am, and you seem to have an automatic bias against any form of "patriotism", good or bad. This isn't quite like religion because there is quite a lot more rationality behind the existence of governments than there is religions.

Patriotism isn't always about kneejerk reactions, you know. The form I practice is more about holding the country of which I am a citizen accountable to certain ideals as part of a social contract as opposed to mere boasting and flag-waving. If that's not what you call "patriotism," then just say so.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 31, 2010 10:16 AM

Nationstates are a thing of the past, or should be. I hope the EU will soon become a federation of states, that would be a step in the right direction.

There are plenty of American pundits who are gleefully saying that the current crisis in Greece (and Spain and Portugal) has already lead to the downfall of the EU and that the Euro won't last the year.

Do I buy this? No. But it's interesting that there are some (albeit right wing) commentators that are so nationalistic that they want every other country to be its own island as well.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlCuGvYf-TQVYO2B_-nljfT8Crus_PkI4s | May 31, 2010 10:35 AM

No one ever finishes that quote:

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

That was Carl Shurz, who said some other good things:

"The man who in times of popular excitement boldly and unflinchingly resists hot-tempered clamor for an unnecessary war, and thus exposes himself to the opprobrious imputation of a lack of patriotism or of courage, to the end of saving his country from a great calamity, is, as to "loving and faithfully serving his country," at least as good a patriot as the hero of the most daring feat of arms, and a far better one than those who, with an ostentatious pretense of superior patriotism, cry for war before it is needed, especially if then they let others do the fighting."

Posted by: Katharine | May 31, 2010 10:42 AM

If religion is taking a downfall, what can we do to provoke it into going apeshit and imploding completely?

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | May 31, 2010 10:52 AM

We have quite a long way to go before the natural possessiveness people have over scarce resources gives way to free trade. I mean, it's the very reason NAFTA doesn't work as designed and why Greece is causing problems with the Euro right now.

Hell, you don't even have to look outside a nation's borders for this. I live in (and am a native-born citizen) of the gawdawful province of Alberta here in Canada, and it's with almost comical avarice that the right-wing majority huddles over our oil wealth muttering, "Mine, mine, mine," while batting at the other provinces and shouting, "MINE! GET AWAY!"

Granted, it's made worse by the fact that a previous federal government poorly legislated away a previous oil boom instead of doing it in such a way that would ensure more equitable prosperity, but it wouldn't have been necessary if this province was capable of sharing with our co-Canadians in the first place.

In fact, there was a growing secessionist movement here that was only stifled by the unfortunate election of our current Conservative government led by Stephen "Cold Dead Eyes" Harper (seriously, look at his eyes - creepy). It was nowhere near the strength of the secessionists in Quebec, but it's still there. Just quieter right now.

The nation state is far from dead. As much as the European Union is a grand experiment, people are too tribal and invested in their little spheres of interest to make it the wave of the future.

And frankly, I hope I'm never in a situation where my vote - already meaningless for most elections in this conservative province - isn't further devalued by having to compete against American votes.

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 10:55 AM

@godlessgeek:

What's bad about all those is what they meant when they said it. That's the really nasty, nationalist form of patriotism. Yes, even the Pope is guilty of it. The only difference is that the "nation" he was talking about is a religion.

Posted by: Katharine | May 31, 2010 11:16 AM

Mention any of the documents mentioned here to a right-wing nationalist and they will probably go 'whut? ah never heard a' that' because half of them have a cultural exposure limited to their own bacteria.

Posted by: Foggg | May 31, 2010 11:42 AM

Patriotism n.
Combustible rubbish ready to be torched by anyone ambitious to illuminate themselves.
--Ambrose Bierce

Posted by: lenoxuss | May 31, 2010 12:32 PM

I have zero use for "patriotism". Not only does it vaguely imply "my country right or wrong", but it implies some weird duty to "love" the country you happen to have been born in. Which is especially weird, because the uber-"patriotic" conservatives rarely apply that same standard to other Earthlings.

If a Frenchman disagrees with his government or culture, you don't hear Republicans saying "Why does he Hate His Country? Why Blame France First?" And you never hear any Americans insist that patriotism is just as important a virtue in North Korea or Iran. Somehow, it's just a virtue if you were already born in or traveled to the right country — oh, and also, sorry, but there just so happens to be o right country.

I certainly love many things about the country I happen to have been born in. Maybe even most things! (Although I will add that there are things about my country I despise.) I think I "love" the USA the same way I love Doctor Who or Tintin comics; if I were "patriotic" about those things, the term would imply that my love of them was "objective", meaning that you really ought to love them too and there's something a little wrong with you if you don't. In that sense, "patriotism" means more than mere "love of country". There's a meta-message that said love-of-country is virtue, a universal good. (By contrast, people don't write long screeds about how everyone needs to love my spouse.)

There's just no need for the idea of patriotism; language is quite adequate to expressing a person's love for just about anything, whether it's the cuisine of a certain culture, or the legal embodiment of rights and freedoms. Love-of-"my"-country is not a necessary concept. Why the word for it?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkMeAAyLWcCyk_BQXcHl2OxQtgREvf43ts | May 31, 2010 1:10 PM

Death to all fanatics! Oh, wait...

Posted by: Roxanne Colella-Brown | May 31, 2010 1:39 PM

Great post, PZ. Loving the discussion too :)

Even the patriots of the Revolution, including the founding fathers, ultimately split into factions over what it meant to be a patriot. Politics and ideology never change.

A sense of dedication to the principles and ideals that allow this type of public conversation are what I, personally, mean when I call myself an American patriot. Sure, I'm a bit biased... I'm only a 2nd generation American and was raised on stories of what made living in this country so desirable that people were willing to travel thousands of miles, and then endure prejudice and scorn as they pursued the American Dream.

And whether our government is at any time right or wrong in their military deployments, I always support our troops as fellow human beings. I'd love NOTHING more than to one day see them all out of jobs, but until that day comes they're putting their lives on the line and deserve my thanks and respect for their sacrifices and those of their families.

Posted by: Tulse | May 31, 2010 3:07 PM

Just to clarify: itsgood2bchildfree's absurd comments (#81)are certainly not representative of 99 percent of Canadians.

I am proud Canadian who is an ex-pat American, and I love Canada largely because its patriotism isn't reflexive jingoism (and indeed, patriotism in Canada is seen as a bit gauche, as something those loudmouthed Americans do. Unless its the Winter Olympics...).

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 3:39 PM

lenoxuss:

Having actually read the entire page now...

Thanks!

I"m noticing a parallel here between defenses of patriotism and those of religion, namely that there is a "blind" patriotism, and then there is truepatriotism, which includes the willingness to criticize your country so as to improve it.

Ah, no. Reread the page, please. I think I said it was the form I practice, among the many other forms out there. I don't believe I called it the true form - I just said it didn't necessarily include nationalism, which is a mindset I disagree with. I'm just saying that patriotism by itself isn't a bad thing.

Personally, I'm not buying that. Saying that "true" patriotism includes strong disagreement with a country (on the basis of there being more important values than yay-country) seems to me like saying that "true" religion includes strong disagreement with the Bible (on the basis of more important virtues than yay-Bible).

Ok, I have gone over this before, so I will annoy everyone and go over it again. Religion and patriotism really aren't the same thing and aren't comparable in any but the most superficial sense. It's like trying to compare a belief in gods with a belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny; all silly beliefs based on a similar magical thinking, but there aren't entire religions formed around Santa Claus. Comparing a religion to patriotism is tempting because of the particularly strong beliefs of some patriotic people (who are often also nationalist), but that's really as far as you can get.

Of course, I am defining patriotism in the sense that I think patriotism was at one time defined in the United States. I very much identify with the Enlightenment mode of thought of a social contract, and at the time of the founding of the USA, patriotism (to the US government) was about holding your government accountable - being a responsible citizen, in other words. It was the Royalists who were generally identified as being wedded to a particular government and they were usually shunned; in fact, a hero-worship of the founders would have been the antithesis of contemporary attitudes.

You may not define patriotism in this way for some reason, which is fine. It is true I have argued for a different definition (mine) to be used, but that is because I don't find the current definition (which has come full-circle to its roots) useful for intelligent discussion because of its emotional baggage. That does not mean I consider mine to be the only true definition.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 31, 2010 5:38 PM

If I didn't love something, then I would have no reason to hate what it has become. Yes it's sophistry, but in a good cause, I swear! - deriamis

Exactly the faithiest attitude to religion: OK it's bullshit, but...

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 31, 2010 5:48 PM

I see true patriotism quite like my love for my husband - is he intrinsically better than any other man on the planet? Not in essence, but I've chosen him and love him for my own reasons. - Dr. FabulousShoes

Analogy FAIL: well over 99% of self-declared patriots have not chosen their country - they just get patriotic about the one they were born in.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 31, 2010 6:04 PM

And whether our government is at any time right or wrong in their military deployments, I always support our troops as fellow human beings. I'd love NOTHING more than to one day see them all out of jobs, but until that day comes they're putting their lives on the line and deserve my thanks and respect for their sacrifices and those of their families. - Roxanna Colella-Brown

More blithering patriotic idiocy. The 9-11 hijackers didn't just put their lives on the line - they deliberately sacrificed them. So presumably they deserve even more thanks and respect.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 31, 2010 6:50 PM

But given that what I'm defending is an emotional attachment (which may or may not reasonable be called "patriotism") them I'm happy enough it's not rational. I don't think any of my emotions are rational as such. Do you really expect them to be? - mattheath

You ignore the point that "moderate" patriots simply give shelter to the extremists. Emotional attachments need not have their roots in rationality, but if an emotional attachment has harmful consequences, as patriotism does, you should get rid of it if you can. Someone has said: "Love God? You're in an abusive relationship." I'd say "Love your country? You're in an abusive relationship." Just like God, it sure as hell won't love you back!

Posted by: Dean Booth | May 31, 2010 8:04 PM

It's clear that the Constitution can't be based on the Bible because the Bible says that slavery is wrong. It does, doesn't it?

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 31, 2010 8:28 PM

Deriamis,
I get off calling you a faitheist because of your admitted sophistry. Patriotism is a quasi-religion - an irrational devotion to "something greater", based on myths.

What happened to you, Knockgoats? You are better than this.

Fuck off, m'kay?

Posted by: Usagichan | May 31, 2010 8:48 PM

Deriamis

I know this is butting in to your set-to with Knockgoats, but when you said

And, for that matter, where do you get off equating politics with religion

I thought to myself they're not alike - apart from the meaningless wars... and the power structures designed to keep the population acquiescent... and a propensity for corruption ("Yeah, goes without saying"), charismatic leaders, misleading the population... in fact I actually have a hard time thinking of any differences between religion and politics.

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 9:05 PM

Usagichan:

I thought to myself they're not alike

I said they weren't alike in anything but a superficial sense. I said that carefully for a reason.

apart from the meaningless wars

Nationalism. I think I already handled that earlier. Patriotism does not necessarily include nationalism.

and the power structures designed to keep the population acquiescent

Uhm, that's not the only function of governments, you know. They actually provide services for its constituents. It's the old tribal system of pooling resources to greater effect. Its problems has much more to do with corruption than nationalism, and that has nothing really to do with patriotism.

and a propensity for corruption ("Yeah, goes without saying")

Just like any organizational structure. But you're talking about the structure of a government, not the motivations for supporting it. That's politics, not patriotism.

charismatic leaders

Yes, and that's potentially true for any group of human beings. Patriotism, as we have identified, is either support of a locality (which would include nationalism) or the ideals of a tribe (which would not). If there is someone who is thought to personify those ideals, that is worship, not patriotism.

in fact I actually have a hard time thinking of any differences between religion and politics.

That's understandable; you're having the same problem Hegel did, which is how he came up with the concept of volksreligion. It has some validity as a sort of analogy, but it really doesn't go very far. The fact is, patriotism isn't necessarily worship (though it can include it, as in the case of a theocracy), and worship is definitely not patriotism. The terms are not congruent. We cannot use the language of one to describe the other without being much more precise about where and how the language actually applies.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2010 9:22 PM

The form I practice is more about holding the country of which I am a citizen accountable to certain ideals as part of a social contract as opposed to mere boasting and flag-waving. If that's not what you call "patriotism," then just say so.

see, this is what is so absurd about patriotism.

when I live in ND, I want to be able to be active in ND; when I lived in Washington State, I wanted to be active in Washington state; when i lived in California, I wanted to be active in California; and when I lived in Germany, I wanted to be active in Germany. Because it's easiest and most effective to be active locally. And yet, I do not feel "patriotic" for any of those places. And silly definitions of nationalism and citizenship forbids me from being active in most of the places I've ever lived and will ever live.

This is counterproductive. feeling patriotic for your location is nonsensical, unless you plan on spending your entire life in the same place. and even then it's just weird.

Posted by: Usagichan | May 31, 2010 9:27 PM

Deriamis,

I think I should have been a bit more clear - I was specifically thinking of the similarities between the physical manifestations of Politics (not patriotism) and Religion - From a practical standpoint, while there may be fundamental philosophical differences (and I understand that there are), the practical results of both Political and Religious structures are so similar as to be reasonably compared in a discussion on one aspect of them.

That

patriotism isn't necessarily worship

seems disingenuous - yes, I'll grant that a considered form of intellectual patriotism is possible (much as Walton enumerated above), but it seems to be neither a natural nor a prevalent form of patriotism. Why not just take the geographical component out and become an idealist?

Posted by: deriamis | May 31, 2010 9:44 PM

Jadehawk:

This is counterproductive. feeling patriotic for your location is nonsensical, unless you plan on spending your entire life in the same place. and even then it's just weird.

Agreed. Did I not already say this? I don't have any particular attachment to a locality. Thing is, the whole world is much too large for me to change to any great extent. My ideals may be global, but I have to act locally to have any real effect - which is what I do.

Usagichan:

seems disingenuous - yes, I'll grant that a considered form of intellectual patriotism is possible (much as Walton enumerated above), but it seems to be neither a natural nor a prevalent form of patriotism. Why not just take the geographical component out and become an idealist?

Like I said: it depends on how you define patriotism. Way earlier on, I presented a possible definition that was clear of the emotional baggage people seem to like bringing with the word these days, and that is the one I have used. I would disagree that mere idealism is useful, though. My conception of pure idealism is that it has no real practical component.

I can accept that you don't like how (some) people currently use the word "patriot" now, but it isn't true that we should throw the word out completely because of it. I argue for redefining the word away from the radical exponents of our culture and retaking control of the conversation. That is what I am doing.

Posted by: Usagichan | May 31, 2010 9:50 PM

Deriamis

Ah, you answered my question while I was posting...

Posted by: Usagichan | May 31, 2010 10:04 PM

Deriamis

I can accept that you don't like how (some) people currently use the word "patriot" now,

Not just now, but historically (I'm not American - for me Patriotism is the watchword of the Empire builder, not the revolutionary). There may have been very short periods where, in certain circles the word patriotism might have meant something with which I would not be too uncomfortable; that doesn't mean to me that I should fight to get the acceptable meaning re-assigned to the word, when I think we (humanity as a whole) should be aiming to leave the word behind as a remnant of a more sectarian past.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2010 11:09 PM

Agreed. Did I not already say this?

no, you merely misunderstood. You spoke of patriotism as a form of civic duty. Well, I don't live in any of the countries I'm a citizen of; I could participate in politics there, but that would be useless to me and potentially harmful, as I'm not necessarily sufficiently informed of what goes on over there. OTOH, I'm barred from virtually all participation in the civic process here where I actually live.

This I called counterproductive. This is why any patriotism is silly. What good does it do anyone for me to feel some duty to a place I haven't lived in almost a decade? For that matter, which of the two countries I'm a citizen of should I feel patriotic towards? No, that's useless. What I want is the ability to act on my own environs, which I can't because I'd have to swear allegiance to this piece of real estate first.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 1, 2010 1:20 AM

Just because patriotism would be silly for you doesn't mean it would be silly for everyone.

it's still silly, to conflate a sense of civic duty with love of country (which is what patriotism is), precisely because a sense of community can be had everywhere one happens to find oneself, and it's absurd to claim patriotism for any or every place one happens to live, just as much as it's absurd to feel a sense of duty towards a place one doesn't even live but was born in/grew up in. My case is just an extreme example of why this is nonsensical.

Conflating a sense of civic duty with patriotism is not too different with conflating compassion with religiousness. In both cases, the latter is a fluffy, meaningless cover connected to much more vile sentiments, which adds nothing to the former.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 1, 2010 6:49 AM

Civic duty is by necessity local, if only because that's the way governments are made.

yeah, I get that. My point is that conflating this with patriotism ends up in a weird sort of polyamory (of the "a girl in every port" variety) situation, since many people will live in more country than one, and feel the sense of wanting to contribute to the community in all of these places.

On a separate subject: they will not be allowed to participate in many civic and community activities, due to the antiquated idea that you should only contribute to a society you've sworn allegiance to (or been born into); but the quicker we can get past this conflation of communal and civic duty with patriotism, the quicker we can have civic participation rules that better reflect a shrinking, more mobile world.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | June 1, 2010 10:36 AM

Late to the party, but I actually was thinking about this over the weekend.

I, too, have somewhat of an issue with the dick-measuring contest that is modern (right-winger-defined) "patriotism". However, it's by no means a uniquely US issue.

Else, why would you have hordes of immigrants ... legal or otherwise ... proudly display the flags and other symbols of the piss-poor countries they escaped to come here to scrub our toilets and pick our fruits? They're proud of Guatemala and Nicaragua and Costa Rica, and their geographical (if not economic) heritage.

I know Iranians who escaped the Shah who are proud Iranians, as well as Iranians who escaped the ayatollahs who are just as proud. There's probably not an Afghani on the planet who isn't a proud Afghani.

It must be instinctual. A way to identify "tribe/not tribe". There appears to be a powerful need to do so. And once set, it is exceedingly difficult to dislodge that self-identification.

But it's not merely country-related. We ALL organize ourselves into "tribe/not tribe" groups. And we can easily identify members of our cohort.

As a demonstration, complete the following phrase:

"Yankees _____."

If you said "suck", you're not from New York.
If you said anything else, you either grew up there or grew up in a household with someone who grew up there.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | June 1, 2010 10:44 AM

Religion and patriotism are similar in so many respects - such as being the two main abstractions people are expected to accept on entirely irrational grounds, the two causes of suicide bombings and genocide, the two main ideological sources of political power - FFS, they are perpetually linked with each other by their proponents. You and others here want to pretend to yourselves that there is a benign patriotism, just as faitheists pretend to themselves that there's a benign religion.

It is not for nothing there is the concept of civil religion. American right-wing patriotism is an often cited example of civil religion.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 1, 2010 11:18 AM

All patriotism is to me is a sense of responsibility to hold my country/government accountable to me and to the rest of the world. That is, after all, what patriotism meant to the people who founded this country - deriamis

And here we see one of the more ludicrous myths of American patriotism, which deriamis has swallowed without a hiccup. The American Revolution is best seen as a falling out between two ruthless gangs of thieves, slaveowners and murderers. One of the main issues at stake was the colonials' wish to continue stealing land from the natives as fast as possible, while the British government wanted a pause - what was that about "responsibility... to the rest of the world"? The constitution was carefully crafted to avoid the rabble having excessive influence - hence the electoral college. Oh and of course as a woman, deriamis, you would have had no vote and no say - and I doubt if even one of the "Founding Fathers" would have disagreed with this.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | June 1, 2010 11:24 AM

Knockgoats: I think there's one major difference between religion and patriotism that you're missing.

Leaving aside some of the more ultra-liberal forms of religion, most religions rest, ultimately, on a series of truth-claims about the nature of reality. Orthodox Christianity, for example, rests on the series of claims set out in the Apostles' Creed: that there is a personal, literal God who created (through some mechanism or another) the universe, who took a deep personal interest in the day-to-day life of ancient Israel, who came to earth in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, was crucified, was resurrected and ascended into heaven.

These things are claims of fact: they are either objectively true or they are not. And the reason I am no longer a Christian is because I can see no convincing evidence whatsoever suggesting that any of these claims are actually true. A person may well find Christianity aesthetically appealing; it may well be a part of his or her cultural heritage and family tradition; and it may (though it certainly doesn't always) serve some objective or fulfil some psychological need for that person. But none of these are good reasons for being a Christian, because they have no bearing whatsoever on the objective truth of the fact-claims made by Christianity.

Patriotism is not like this, because it doesn't rest on any particular set of truth-claims. It doesn't make claims of objective fact about the nature of reality. Rather, it's a matter of preferences and value-judgments about what one considers important, and how one wishes to live one's life. As such, questions like "does patriotism serve a useful social objective?" or "does patriotism fulfil a psychological need?" or "is patriotism, on balance, beneficial or harmful?" are relevant to the question of whether patriotism is worthwhile. It may, of course, be that the answer to all these questions is in the negative, and that patriotism is not worthwhile; which is the issue that is being discussed on this thread. But the point I'm trying to make is that patriotism is different in kind from religion. Religion, in most of its forms, is ultimately a set of claims about objective reality which are either true or false, and so we should be concerned with whether a given religion is true, not with whether it is useful. Patriotism, by contrast, rests on value-judgments and preferences, not on claims of fact: and so it would make no sense to ask whether patriotisim is "true", but it is entirely legitimate to ask whether it is useful.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | June 1, 2010 11:30 AM

I should add to #173 that I'm not denying that there are psychological and sociological parallels between religion and patriotism, as phenomena in human societies. They can be manifestations of similar psychological tendencies. But it's important not to carry the comparison too far. It certainly isn't incoherent or inconsistent for a person to be non-religious and at the same time firmly patriotic.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 1, 2010 12:14 PM

Walton,

What Matt Penfold said. There are also other forms of religion that don't make factual claims - "non-realist" Christianity, and Zen Buddhism for example.

Posted by: deriamis | June 1, 2010 1:33 PM

Knockgoats:

Religion and patriotism are similar in so many respects - such as being the two main abstractions people are expected to accept on entirely irrational grounds, the two causes of suicide bombings and genocide, the two main ideological sources of political power - FFS, they are perpetually linked with each other by their proponents.

You DO realize that this is exactly what the word volksreligion was coined for. You know, just like I said? So, fine, you accept the concept of volksreligion. At this point I can't really say anything because all cultural beliefs would be irrational to you. Why didn't you just say this?

You and others here want to pretend to yourselves that there is a benign patriotism, just as faitheists pretend to themselves that there's a benign religion.

Faitheism != patriotism. Read my responses to Usagichan for why. Or, since you are showing an uncharacteristic reluctance to actually read my posts for some reason, the basic premise is that, while they may share some disturbing similarities in physical manifestation, the similarities end there. I really don't know why you keep acting like I somehow fit your definition of patriotism, too, when (by every single post here) I obviously do not.

Also, you are deliberately attempting to discredit my argument with guilt by association. I do not appreciate this. If you would like to refute my argument, do it on rational grounds, please.

QFT.

Yes, I agreed as well. Why did you act like I did not?

And here we see one of the more ludicrous myths of American patriotism, which deriamis has swallowed without a hiccup. The American Revolution is best seen as a falling out between two ruthless gangs of thieves, slaveowners and murderers.

When did you become an idiot? Seriously, when? You are arguing with a fantasy version of me that did not say the things you read. Either read my posts or shut the fuck up already.

Matt Penfold:

Patriotism does of necessity make factual claims, but then nor does religion in the form of deism. However both as actually practised seem to do so.

Like I have said too many times already, it depends on what your definition of "patriot" is. Waaaaay back up near the beginning of this, I attempted to formulate a definition of the word without the emotional baggage. I did not attempt to make it more rational, which would not be possible.

This discussion was really about taking a word and a conversation back from extreme elements of society. That's all. I thought it fairly obvious that such a thing should happen to take the power to frighten others away from them. If we should be discussing whether we should do this, then fine.

Knockgoats:

What Matt Penfold said. There are also other forms of religion that don't make factual claims - "non-realist" Christianity, and Zen Buddhism for example.

This is obvious to me, but I don't see what it has to do with the subject at hand. How do we keep extremists from using an irrational word irrationally to frighten the beejeesus out of the masses? This isn't about being factual at all - it's about using language to bring about societal change. If you would like to use a word that is rational and is also capable of changing public discourse, I am all for knowing which one you would use.

Posted by: deriamis | June 1, 2010 2:16 PM

windy:

I wouldn't say it's absurd, if the citizens of that place provided me with education and health care and other things as I was growing up.

I think her point was that she lives in a country other than the one she grew up in. So, the question is, which country should she show her allegiance to?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 1, 2010 2:51 PM

This discussion was really about taking a word and a conversation back from extreme elements of society. That's all.

but it isn't a concept worth taking back

@181: I know, I was just making a tangential comment.

well, for what it's worth, one of my citizenships is for a country that didn't provide me with much of anything; I was born there, but we moved countries before I went to school. And anything that was provided by it before the move was technically provided by a government that doesn't exist anymore, since the People's Republic of Poland stopped existing the year after the move.

Posted by: deriamis | June 1, 2010 3:56 PM

Knockgoats:

WTF are you on about? What would a "non-cultural belief" look like? I judge whether beliefs are rational by the evidence and arguments for and against them.

Would you please read what I am saying? I seriously don't know what you are disagreeing with me on.

And of course, I didn't say it was. What I am equating to faitheism is the belief that there are benign forms of patriotism.

Except that there are. Faitheism is, by definition, a benign form of faith. You just don't agree with its premise, and neither do I.

Again, read what I have written before you respond. We're not talking about what I believe here. You seem to think that just because I say something I have bought into what you think it means.

I was simply pointing our what complete patriotic bullshit your idea of "the people who founded this country" was. Like I said, you've simply swallowed the myth. And no, I'm not going to shut up at your command.

Then do something else at my command and read my motherfucking posts already. Cock-sucking non-existent deities, you are absolutely ludicrous! If you had actually read what was in black-and-white on your freaking screen, you would have seen where I had said that I found my definition arguable because it agrees with a patriotic notion. I didn't say I actually believed it, and it isn't my idea! I'm trying to come up with a way of justifying my own personal beliefs, dickhead. As I have said multiple times and in multiple ways (get it through your thick skull, already!), I am trying to find a way to get the crazies to be less crazy!

Sorry, you don't get to redefine words to suit yourself.

So, what, we let the crazies do it for us. We let them lock us into a conversation we can't talk about rationally because we have to use their own irrational terms to do it?

What's the big problem with just discarding patriotism in the same way as religion, as an irrational and harmful delusion?

I'm trying to formulate a debate tactic here, not decide whether a concept should be discarded. Of course it should - something I have already stated multiple times. My "redefinition" is just a way of putting what I do believe in terms the crazies can understand. Jeebus-shitting-Christ on a Porcelain Cross, get what I am saying already!

Gah! I'm too worked up about this to continue, now. Jeebus, Knockgoats, when did you stop reading motherfucking posts?

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 1, 2010 4:10 PM

deriamis,

Faitheism is, by definition, a benign form of faith.

No: it's belief in belief.

Then do something else at my command and read my motherfucking posts already.

I've read every one of them. I even quoted back to you what you said about "the people who founded this country". If you didn't believe that, I missed where you said so. Consider the possibility that, since I seem to have suddenly descended into idiocy according to you, maybe it's something in what you're saying or how you're saying it that's the problem, and not me at all. After all, I'm not alone in my opposition to it here.

My "redefinition" is just a way of putting what I do believe in terms the crazies can understand.

Using words with your own private definitions is, again, exactly what the Armstrongs and Eagletons do - pretending that religion is not what it actually is. It won't work, and is in any case dishonest.

Posted by: lenoxuss | June 1, 2010 6:04 PM

I am an anti-war liberal. "Patriotism" is frequently associated with the right wing and with support of war. So naturally, my opposition to "patriotism" seems all bundled up with my opposition to those things.

To clarify: I find liberal and pacifistic patriotism just as creepy as any other varieties. For example, in the most recent State of the Union address, Obama argued for infrastructure investment using American-exceptionalist language:

There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

That creeped me the fuck out. I mean, by definition, some country should have the fastest trains, and I don't much care if it's Italy or whatever.

There's nothing wrong with efficient trains, or working to get one country's trains to maximum efficiency. You can call yourself a "train idealist". But making these things into a contest, country-versus-country, is just weird.

From the OP: "Question religion. But also question your government. It wasn't founded by gods."

I've never been able to get a great handle on what the Right considers the historical cutoff point for the acceptability of government questioning. I mean, you're not supposed to express disapproval of the Founding Fathers, or of past government treatment of Native Americans (including a lot of awful stuff under the Democrat Jackson), cause that's our Glorious History and frowning on it would be Politically Correct (boo!)… but… denouncing the New Deal is A-OK.

If your government is considering starting a war, you'd better support it so as to Get Behind the Troops… but at all other times, Government is the Worst Thing. I just don't get it.