Patriotism Poll

[Puppycow]

I believe that if you are an American either by choice or by default, that you should basically be loyal to your country and not sympathize with enemies of America (if you are not American, substitute your own country in place of ‘America’). I think it is OK to try to see things from their perspective, to try to figure out if there is a way to reduce the hostility, but it is a mistake to go so far as to actually sympathize with them. I believe that most liberals are loyal Americans. However, some people go to such extreme lengths to cherrypick facts that paint America in a bad light and her enemies in the best possible light, that it seems to the observer that they sympathize with the enemy more than their fellow countrymen.
Anyone who has watched a legal drama has seen how lawyers behave. Lawyers from the prosecution and the defense each cherrypick facts and arguments that are beneficial to their own side. We know that neither side alone presents an unbiased view. I think this kind of biased behavior is pretty pervasive in our culture. Perhaps this is a side effect of our culture of free speech and our legal system. Sometimes contrarian-minded people get a little carried away, effectively becoming ‘devil’s advocates’ or de facto pro bono lawyers for America’s enemies.
Ramsey Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_clark) is an extreme example of the sort of person I am thinking of, but I see similar tendencies in some others. I forget who said that ‘a liberal is a man who is too broad-minded to take his own side in an argument’ but I think that there is some truth to that.
Generally speaking, I don’t think that Americans are any better or worse than foreigners. All groups of people contain the same mix of humans, good and bad, although the circumstances and prevailing culture differs. But a reasonable person can be loyal to his own family without thinking that they are fundamentally better people, and the same sort of loyalty can be extended to the nation, which protects our freedoms and way of life from those who would deny them.

[Texas]

LOL Good luck.

[Tony]

No answer, none of the options reflect my position.

[Texas]

No answer, none of the options reflect my position.
In today's political climate in the United States I think the most honest option is "it depends on which party is in power".

[Puppycow]

No answer, none of the options reflect my position.

Well, what is your position?

[quixotecoyote]

Everything but #2. The options kinda blend.

[RandFan]

Well, what is your position?Patriotic not jingoistic. I think America has made many serious blunders in South America, Iran (Shah), Iraq (didn't send a firm message to Saddam about Kuwait) to name but a few.

Patriotism doesn't mean blind obedience. Protesters can be patriots. The history and underpinnings of America are rooted in protest, civil disobedience and seeking redress for grievances.

I didn't vote either.

[Puppycow]

Patriotic not jingoistic. I think America has made many serious blunders in South America, Iran (Shah), Iraq (didn't send a firm message to Saddam about Kuwait) to name but a few.

Patriotism doesn't mean blind obedience. Protesters can be patriots. The history and underpinnings of America are rooted in protest, civil disobedience and seeking redress for grievances.

I didn't vote either.

I can agree with all that.
BTW, I know basically what jingoism means but I decided to look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism) to get the precise definition. I was interested to learn the etymology of the word, which is this:
The chorus of a song by MacDermott and G. W. Hunt commonly sung in pubs at the time gave birth to the term. The lyrics had the chorus:

We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do,
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too,
We've fought the Bear before, and while we're Britons true,
The Russians shall not have Constantinople.

The expression "by Jingo" is apparently a minced oath that appeared rarely in print, but which has its origins as far back as the 17th century in a transparent euphemism for "by Jesus".[1]

[slingblade]

I like America. But, then again, I don't know any place else. What have I to compare it to? To what, exactly, do I owe my "loyalty?"

And I'm serious. If I'm going to question my assumptions, I have to start right from the off with the notion that because my mom squeezed me out here, the country owes me something, or I owe it. Did it ask for me? Did I ask for it? Why does happenstance create in either of us a sense of obligation?

Now, had I come here from someplace else, willingly, then yes. I can see where I'd have at least some obligation....I mean, the place was good enough to take me in, yes? And I made a choice, rather like buying a home. I'd like to be proud of it.

By the same token, I get tired of hearing generic criticisms of Americans, simply because they're Americans. Hey, I'm not any happier with what the government has done than anyone else who's unhappy about it, but I didn't vote for the head moron. In fact, I feel bad for voting at all, now. I'm sure some of the people I did vote for, who won, are equal morons.

Just give me some logical, non-emotional reasons for "patriotism." As I said, this is a nice enough place, I suppose. There are worse places. There may be better; I wouldn't know. But I don't see why I should be loyal or disloyal simply by the accident of my birth. I mean, I don't commit treason because it's a crime, and it violates my personal code. Not out of any loyalty.

[gumboot]

I selected only the first one. I think loyalty to your "tribe" is important, and I think all members of that "tribe" have a responsibility and a duty to protect and preserve that "tribe" if it is threatened. My country is my tribe.

New Zealand raised me. This country protected me and nurtured me as a baby. It educated me, and it continues to offer me protection, education, and a peaceful free society in which to live. I have no desire to ever fight to protect or defend my nation. But if my nation is ever threatened, I will fight for it. I will fight to ensure that the generations of New Zealanders that follow me will enjoy the same life that I have enjoyed. If necessary, I believe New Zealand is worth dying for.

There's a number of key considerations however. Firstly, is the tribe threatened?

Secondly, in the statement:

"Loyalty to a country worth defending is important."

The terms "loyalty", "worth defending" and "important" leave room for a variety of positions.

Most countries have treason laws that prohibit citizens from actively participating in, or inciting war against their own country. That seems reasonable and justified to me.

Does that mean citizens shouldn't be allowed to express sympathy for our perceived enemies? (Whether they actually pose a threat or not). I don't think so. One of the things that makes the country worth defending is that it allows citizens to express whatever view they wish.

No opinions should be outlawed. It is acting on that opinion that should not be permitted.

-Gumboot

[RandFan]

I like America. But, then again, I don't know any place else. What have I to compare it to? To what, exactly, do I owe my "loyalty?"

And I'm serious. If I'm going to question my assumptions, I have to start right from the off with the notion that because my mom squeezed me out here, the country owes me something, or I owe it. Did it ask for me? Did I ask for it? Why does happenstance create in either of us a sense of obligation?

Now, had I come here from someplace else, willingly, then yes. I can see where I'd have at least some obligation....I mean, the place was good enough to take me in, yes? And I made a choice, rather like buying a home. I'd like to be proud of it.

By the same token, I get tired of hearing generic criticisms of Americans, simply because they're Americans. Hey, I'm not any happier with what the government has done than anyone else who's unhappy about it, but I didn't vote for the head moron. In fact, I feel bad for voting at all, now. I'm sure some of the people I did vote for, who won, are equal morons.

Just give me some logical, non-emotional reasons for "patriotism." As I said, this is a nice enough place, I suppose. There are worse places. There may be better; I wouldn't know. But I don't see why I should be loyal or disloyal simply by the accident of my birth. I mean, I don't commit treason because it's a crime, and it violates my personal code. Not out of any loyalty.Good post. I don't think patriotism is requisite of anyone. America should absolutely embrace those who do not wish to be patriotic.

Patriotism to me is pride of the ideals that my nation was founded on and the belief that I have that America is a grand and noble experiment, even if we did get so much of it so wrong. It's not the greatest and it often fails to live up to the ideals. However, the ideals are significant, a nation of the people by the people and for the people. Also, that all people have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they are denied their rights they should be able to appeal to their leaders and also to be able to seek redress through the courts.

You raise a great point about not choosing America. Happenstance isn't enough. However, I'm here, I'm happy to be here and not Darfur, Cambodia, North Korea or many other hell holes around the world. I'm loyal because America has given me an opportunity and a promise. It could do better but I'm grateful for what I do have.

I have, many times, defended patriotism. I wouldn't try to sell to anyone though. It's a personal thing. It is emotional. I didn't choose my wife for purely logical reasons and I'm not loyal to her for purely logical reasons. I guess the same is true for the love of my country.

Given the choice I would likely choose it anyway.

BTW: I note you are waving the flag. :)

[Puppycow]

Nice flag slingblade. :)

As far as logical, non-emotional reasons for "patriotism," I think there is a two-part response. The first is that emotion is not illegitimate just because it’s not logical, and the second is a matter of practicality. I think that as a society we do better when we have a certain group identity in common, which encourages cooperation. This is not to say that all cooperation should be within a country; cooperation between countries is also beneficial. Ultimately, I would probably prefer a single united world government, if it is a fair, just, accountable, and effective one, but as a practical matter, I don’t see any such thing happening in the foreseeable future. Better to work with the current system to try to gradually improve it.

[TragicMonkey]

I believe the most American response to the question of patriotism is a sincere, heartfelt "Meh."

[Abooga]

The problem is when patriotism mixes with politics to give "nationalism".

And nationalism is to political ideologies as astrology is to astronomy, methinks.

Patriotism as a purely personal "love" I don´t have a problem with. As with religion, paraphrasing that brilliant quote: "I respect patriotism like I respect the way parents think that their children are the most intelligent, the most beautiful." I can´t remember the exact quote now...

[slingblade]

:D Yeah, it is a nice flag. And it's almost Independence Day, a nicely patriotic holiday.

As I said, I like America, like living here, and along with RandFan, I'm grateful for what I have that living here has given me the chance to earn. I'm sure I used to at least give more lip service to patriotism, in my not-so-disillusioned youth. The last decade or so has given me pause, however, about whether I can be proud of my country now.

That's the basic issue I have with it. I'm not just proud of my country by default. It has to rather earn my pride in it, and if it's not doing particularly noble things....well, I have a harder time feeling that pride.

When we speak of patriotism, what do we mean? It must be one of those highly subjective topics, the essence of which is going to vary from person to person.

When I think of my rights, especially those in the First Amendment, I am proud to live here. When I see what my government is trying to do to my rights, and how many of my fellow citizens not only don't get alarmed, but actually think it might be a good thing, I'm not so proud.

When I see how much bounty my country produces, by the sweat of our brows, I'm proud. When I see that everything has a price, and "what's in it for me" is more important than what I can do for you, I'm not so proud.

Don't even get me started on education, and our ranking among various nations in science and math.

But so what? Every place has problems. Does patriotism depend on perfectionism? I doubt it. Perhaps the problem lies in my lexicon? Maybe I think a patriot is always proud. Maybe I think patriotism has a blinding effect, and I try to eschew such things these days, when I'm bright enough to recognize them, that is.

I like America. I just don't think I'm all that patriotic--flag-waving for the holiday aside. ;)

[BPSCG]

Of course, there are always those who make little or no distinction between patriotism and nationalism, and since nationalism is a Bad Thing, so is patriotism, even the displays thereof (http://www.progressive.org/media_mpzinn070106):
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.Jeeze, I remember having to read this guy's crap for a history seminar when I was in college a couple of thousand years ago.

Yeah, we have an American flag hanging from the front of our house, 365 days a year, not just on days when government offices are closed so we can go spend money at the mall. And so do many of our left-leaning neighbors here in the Democratic People's Republic of Alexandria, which votes a little to the left of San Francisco each November.

The same emotions swell up in my breast every day when I see all those flags: Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could drop a couple of WMDs on someone today? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could engage in some expansionism today and make Ontario our 51st state?

And I know my neighbors all feel the same, including Paula, who's a little to the left of Ralph Nader.

(I voted for the first option, plus the Planet X one, out of fealty to Dennis.)

[gumboot]

Does patriotism truly mean blind pride in one's nation? I would call that nationalism.

The ultimate symbol of patriotism may be dying for your nation on a battlefield, but I think that's at the extreme end. Ultimately, a patriot of this type is seeking to better their society and ensure its future by defeating foreign entities that would destroy it. Therefore, a person who seeks to better their society and ensure its future by combating a government that threatens it is also a patriot.

The fundamental tenants of patriotism, to me:

1) My nation is broadly worthy of my respect
2) My nation rightly deserves to continue to exist
3) I am willing to offer a sacrifice (time, money, effort, life) in order to preserve my nation from all threats

-Gumboot

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Patriotism: The last refuge of the Scoundrel -- Dr Samuel Johnson 1709-1784

[billydkid]

Wait, it isn't as if all your choices are mutually exclusive making it impossible to vote honestly in your poll. So, when did you stop beating your wife?

[Abooga]

Nationalism: can any rational thinker defend it ?

[Puppycow]

The last decade or so has given me pause, however, about whether I can be proud of my country now.

That's the basic issue I have with it. I'm not just proud of my country by default. It has to rather earn my pride in it, and if it's not doing particularly noble things....well, I have a harder time feeling that pride.

When we speak of patriotism, what do we mean? It must be one of those highly subjective topics, the essence of which is going to vary from person to person.

When I think of my rights, especially those in the First Amendment, I am proud to live here. When I see what my government is trying to do to my rights, and how many of my fellow citizens not only don't get alarmed, but actually think it might be a good thing, I'm not so proud.

When I see how much bounty my country produces, by the sweat of our brows, I'm proud. When I see that everything has a price, and "what's in it for me" is more important than what I can do for you, I'm not so proud.

Don't even get me started on education, and our ranking among various nations in science and math.

Excellent post. :)

I totally understand this. I too cringe when I see Americans behave disgracefully. But I try to keep a balance in my mind and remember that the news media is attracted to the bad things and when things go right, it's not news. It's the problem of "cherrypicking" again; the lawyer's approach. The human mind cannot take in all information, so we see patterns that may just be random noise because we tend to focus on certain things while ignoring others. This is why cold readers can get away with their cons. To some extent this is unavoidable, simply because this is how our brains work.

The US also produces lots of great stuff, leads the world in science, and has many cooperative and helpful international relations. The Iraq war was a huge blunder, but hopefully we will learn our lesson and eventually this sorry episode will fade into history. It may take some time. On the other hand, American and British scientists have invented many lifesaving vaccines such as those for polio and smallpox, and countless other lifesaving technology. I imagine that the vast majority of people in the world have at some time or other directly benefited from some US-created technology, such as a vaccine or something else. So in the big picture, I think there is more to evoke pride than shame, but we should not focus on only one and ignore the other.

[Upchurch]

Although I very much enjoy other countries, my loyalties are to the US 100%.

That being said, I would like to point out that the US is defined by "We the People of the United States" and not necessarily our momentary government.

[Puppycow]

Patriotism: The last refuge of the Scoundrel -- Dr Samuel Johnson 1709-1784

I've interpreted that to mean not that all patriots are scoundrels, but rather that scoundrels claim to be patriots as a convienent fig leaf.

[Puppycow]

Wait, it isn't as if all your choices are mutually exclusive making it impossible to vote honestly in your poll. So, when did you stop beating your wife?

That's why you can check more than one box.

[tsg]

Patriotism means loving your country enough to tell it when it is screwing up.

[BPSCG]

Patriotism means loving your country enough to tell it when it is screwing up.Patriotism includes loving your country enough to tell it when it is screwing up.

[Upchurch]

Patriotism means loving your country enough to tell it when it is screwing up.
Ramen.

It's like family. No matter how much they act like ignorant jerks, you still love 'em.

[billydkid]

That's why you can check more than one box.Oh, I didn't even try that. Sorry.

[Fnord]

There is no single foreign policy that is 'right' all of the time and in every situation.

[Earthborn]

I believe that if you are an American either by choice or by default, that you should basically be loyal to your country and not sympathize with enemies of America (if you are not American, substitute your own country in place of ‘America’).Not being American, I am still often expected to be loyal to 'America' over my own country and not sympathise with America's enemies. Some may claim that America's enemies are also my country's enemies and that I therefore should not sympathise with them, but of course much of the reason that America's enemies are also my country's enemies is because my country is loyal to America. I guess it is easier to be patriotic towards your own country to the exclusion of others, if your country is for all intends and purposes running much of the world and doesn't have to deal with lots of other countries for pretty much everything it does.

I don't quite understand what the whole fuss is with 'patriotism'. To me, a nation is just a unit of political organisation. If I am expected to feel loyal towards it, does that mean I should also feel loyal towards my municipality? How about my province, waterdistrict or waste collection route?

I think it is OK to try to see things from their perspective, to try to figure out if there is a way to reduce the hostility, but it is a mistake to go so far as to actually sympathize with them.I think you need to explain what you think the difference is between "seeing things from their perspective" and "actually sympathising". Is thinking "I think it is wrong what they do, but if I was in their situation I might do the same" sympathising or seeing things from their perspective? How about "I agree with what they do, but not with their justification for it" ?

However, some people go to such extreme lengths to cherrypick facts that paint America in a bad light and her enemies in the best possible light,Well, if you want to see things from one's enemy's perspective, you kinda have to. The enemy doesn't see you from your best side and doesn't see himself from the worst. Someone who presents the view of 'the enemy' -- even if s/he does not subscribe to that point of view -- will have to present the facts cherrypicked the way 'the enemy' would do it.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've interpreted that to mean not that all patriots are scoundrels, but rather that scoundrels claim to be patriots as a convienent fig leaf.

That seems reasonable. But how do you tell the two types appart?

[BPSCG]

Not being American, I am still often expected to be loyal to 'America' over my own country and not sympathise with America's enemies. Some may claim that America's enemies are also my country's enemies and that I therefore should not sympathise with them, but of course much of the reason that America's enemies are also my country's enemies is because my country is loyal to America.I think your reasoning is chasing itself around the table here.

I don't expect you to have any loyalty to America, any more than I have any loyalty to the Netherlands. But I do have loyalty to our common values - those basic principles that enable liberal democracies to exist, such as the right to own the contents of our own skins, the right to peaceably own our own property, the right to live our own lives free of any unreasonable government interference.

That established, I would expect countries who share common values to have similar goals and to generally support each others' goals. Yes, there will be disagreements on how to achieve those goals, and even disagreement on whether those goals should even be sought. But similar core values will lead countries to have similar goals, in much the same way that similar core values will lead people to become friends.

And dramatically different core values will tend to translate into opposing goals, even enmity.

So, do I expect other countries, and the citizens of those countries, to be loyal to the US? Of course not. But I do expect that we will find we have many of the same goals. And if I observe that our goals have begun to diverge dramatically, I'll start to question to what extent we do still have the same core values.

[Cain]

In an increasingly culturally, politically and economically integrated world, patriotism makes less sense than ever before. Furthermore it is too often taken to mean not simply a set of universal core values, but a stupid, unquestioning secular religion. Only one person (so far) checked "my country, right or wrong" because everyone would like to believe they're above such obvious nonsense.

What does patriotism often mean in the public sphere in the United States? America right or wrong. Sticking it to the rest of the world. Believing we are the greatest country on the face of the earth -- that God actually gives us His personal blessings. I think it was Chesterton who belittled Kipling's "small patriotism." If British military power evaporated, if their position in international affairs diminished, if they had to compromise more and bully less, could one ramp down love of country? Argh, I'll just look up the exact quote:

G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a “lack of patriotism.” He explained: “He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.”

http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/011016.shtml

Looking it over again, this is a good column (written shortly after 9/11), even if Sobran wants to claim patriotism against nationalism.

I get the impression from conservatives, the people who have claimed flag and country, that worshiping America is rational; we're objectively the best. They seem wonder how someone from some "****-hole" third world country, or second tier European economy could think their country is great? Such affection is probably seen as charming -- parents DO after all love even their ugly children -- but far from ideal. Everyone should at the very least love America because of everything we've done for them. We make everyone better off, and if you hesitate for a second in reaffirming this faith then you're just jealous(!) of our freedoms and power. Mostly our power.

I do not go around declaring how much I love my family or how great I think it is. For one thing, I don't actually love my family; secondly, bragging is just in poor taste. Patriotism in the U.S. is obnoxious and humorless. Why can't our informal national slogan be, "America: We're OK."

[BPSCG]

Why can't our informal national slogan be, "America: We're OK."I prefer "America: F:biggrin: :biggrin: k, Yeah! (http://imdb.com/title/tt0372588/quotes)"

[ImaginalDisc]

I prefer "America: F:biggrin: :biggrin: k, Yeah! (http://imdb.com/title/tt0372588/quotes)"

You would.

America's mostly fine. On the whole, a great place to live, but not a great neighbor to have.

[Upchurch]

I prefer "America: F:biggrin: :biggrin: k, Yeah! (http://imdb.com/title/tt0372588/quotes)"

I prefer my family analogy: I'll complain about my family all day long, but if the guy next door does it, I'll kick his teeth in.


metaphorically speaking, of course.

[BPSCG]

...not a great neighbor to have.How would you know?

In any case, why don't you ask some of America's neighbors? Here's a complete list:

Canada
MexicoIf America isn't a great neighbor to have, in what way has Canada been suffering? We haven't invaded the country in almost 200 years, and we're the biggest buyer of their oil. We let Canadians come into the US with little more than a wave of the hand from the customs guys, and let them use their coins here (at least in the northeast). I would guess that the worst thing about the US vis a vis Canada is our appalling lack of knowledge of their country (quick, what's the capital?)

Mexico. Okay, frankly, I think the best thing we could do for Mexico would be to round up every illegal alien in the US, truck them back to Mexico, and put a 20-foot high wall on the border, with guards every 100 feet and the authority to shoot to kill. Seriously. That would force the Mexican government to deal with its rampant corruption and cronyism that has kept Mexico poor, instead of exporting its poverty problems. Or it could spark mass rioting, insurrection, and civil war in our neighbor to the south.

We pause momentarily while waiting for ID to stop screaming curses at the screen. Look, ID, you know and I know that's never going to happen, so calm down...We're a good neighbor to the oligarchy that runs Mexico, not so good to the rest of the population. But I wonder what country would be a better neighbor.

[ImaginalDisc]

How would you know?

If you paid the least attention to the history of Cuba, one of our neighbors, you'd note the U.S. has not been a good neighbor to them. Haiti's been treated even worse.

[Tony]

Well, what is your position?

I am loyal to my government so long as the government is loyal to our founding ideas.

[BPSCG]

If you paid the least attention to the history of Cuba, one of our neighbors, you'd note the U.S. has not been a good neighbor to them. Haiti's been treated even worse.What do you think about Canada and Mexico, countries we actually share a border with?

[ImaginalDisc]

What do you think about Canada and Mexico, countries we actually share a border with?

:eek: Are you sure your slogan isn't "Remember the Maine?"

[DanishDynamite]

The nation-state was invented by Europeans in the 19th century according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-state), though an argument could be made that Iceland invented it a thousand years earlier.

The point is that it is an invented concept. It was invented for a purpose, and when that purpose no longer exists or is superceded, it shouldn't have any more relevance than "tribe" used to have.

[Cain]

What do you think about Canada and Mexico, countries we actually share a border with?

Historically we've had more than one border with Mexico Anyway, I "America, **** Yeah" is one of my all-time favorite songs, but if it came out today it would not have the immigrants line. "Bed Bath and Beyond [slightly embarrassed] **** yeah!"

[BPSCG]

:eek: Are you sure your slogan isn't "Remember the Maine?"I'm not sure I understand how that is supposed to be an answer to the question, "What do you think about Canada and Mexico, countries we actually share a border with?" Do you think we're a good neighbor to those countries, yes or no?

[Matt the Poet]

The question is, when you say the word 'America' in the sentence 'I love/dspise/fear America', what exactly do you mean?

The entire population of America? It's a big country - there must be someone you don't like.

The government of America? But that changes every four years, and presumably occasionally it's going to be people you voted against, doing stuff you don't agree with.

The power structures that underlie the government of America? It seems a rather abstract thing to get worked up about, and in any case this would be equivalent to stating that you will never brook any argument about the way your country is goverened (campaing funding etc) at that it is unpatriotic to do so.

The landmass itself? What is it about it's chemical composition that makes it more special than any other landmass?

This is the problem I have with patriotism - not that it's intrinsically evil, it's just that, like religion, the more you bring your brain to bear on it, the less it seems to make any kind of sense...

[RandFan]

Patriotism: The last refuge of the Scoundrel -- Dr Samuel Johnson 1709-1784Johnson was with out a doubt a patriot. (http://www.samueljohnson.com/patrioti.html) We don't really know what context Johnson used in his quote but it was likely that when all else fails scoundrels turn to patriotism. It's false patriotism that Johnson was speaking against.

[Puppycow]

I think you need to explain what you think the difference is between "seeing things from their perspective" and "actually sympathising". Is thinking "I think it is wrong what they do, but if I was in their situation I might do the same" sympathising or seeing things from their perspective? How about "I agree with what they do, but not with their justification for it" ?Good question. To make a sports analogy, "sympathizing" is like rooting for a certain team. At least that's how I meant it. "Seeing things from their perspective" is trying to understand, but without actually "rooting" for them.

Well, if you want to see things from one's enemy's perspective, you kinda have to. The enemy doesn't see you from your best side and doesn't see himself from the worst. Someone who presents the view of 'the enemy' -- even if s/he does not subscribe to that point of view -- will have to present the facts cherrypicked the way 'the enemy' would do it.

Perhaps I should have used the term "confirmation bias" instead of "cherrypicking." Confirmation bias is the phenomenon that we tend to notice things that confirm our prefered world view more readily than things that do not. So yes, we can understand that the enemy has a confirmation bias against us. This can help us to better predict their behaviour. But if you allow yourself to get emotionally attached to their cause, you risk developing your own confirmation bias.

I guess what I am mostly saying is that as skeptics, we should be aware of how confirmation bias can lead to a warped world view, and therefore to question our own emotional biases and look for evidence on both sides of any question instead of only cherrypicking evidence that confirms our own world-view.

[Puppycow]

If you paid the least attention to the history of Cuba, one of our neighbors, you'd note the U.S. has not been a good neighbor to them. Haiti's been treated even worse.

One could also ask, have they been good neighbors to us? Is it our fault that Haiti has always been such a basket case? Or that Cuba aligned itself with the Soviets? Other Caribbean island countries have not had such bad relationships with us. Is it possible that confirmation bias affects your perception here?

[RandFan]

One could also ask, have they been good neighbors to us? Is it our fault that Haiti has always been such a basket case? Or that Cuba aligned itself with the Soviets? Other Caribbean island countries have not had such bad relationships with us. Is it possible that confirmation bias affects your perception here?Good post.

It's fair to note that America has really blundered on a number of decisions. However it seems that many folks just can't bear to think that America could actually have done a number of things right or that other nations bear a share of responsibility for some of the problems. Remember, besides aligning with the Soviets, Cuba seized considerable assets of American businesses. Chavez is now doing the same.

Sometimes we reap that which we sew. That works both ways.

[Lonewulf]

The government of America? But that changes every four years, and presumably occasionally it's going to be people you voted against, doing stuff you don't agree with.

Uh, wrong.

The government doesn't change. Certain leadership may change, and other policies implemented, but the government itself does change.

The same three branches still exist.

The constitution is still there.

The bill of rights is still there.

Name one set of four years where this was not the case, please?

Also, I'd add that the previous policies that were implement are often kept, in one way or another, even with new leadership. So no, the previous government doesn't "disappear" just because some new administration comes in charge of the Executive branch.

I'm not sure I understand how that is supposed to be an answer to the question, "What do you think about Canada and Mexico, countries we actually share a border with?" Do you think we're a good neighbor to those countries, yes or no?

Canada, I'm not sure of. Mexico, though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_war

'nuff said.

But, naturally, I see you blame all of those damn illegals for everything. Naturally.

Next they'll be blamed for spreading disease, causing earthquakes, and generating tsunamis...

[RandFan]

...causing earthquakes, and generating tsunamis...Canadians cause earthquakes and tsunamis. Odd since we give them fortified rain water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain). You would think they would be happy with that.

[Puppycow]

Good post.


Thanks, and happy indepencence day! :USA:
(I'm at work because the Japanese don't celebrate it for some strange reason.) :(

[Matt the Poet]

The government doesn't change. Certain leadership may change, and other policies implemented, but the government itself does change

That's sort of what I meant by 'the power structures that underlie the Government of America' - I was making a point of differentiating these from the people who happen to be in power at the time.

I'm aware that some Americans (I'm not one) view things like the constitution and the bill of rights as being inviolable, but that doesn't make a great deal of sense to me, and in any case it seems rather abstruse to feel genuine love for a set of legal framework documents.

It also gets you into trouble occasionally. I'd recommend Daniel Lazare's 'The Velvet Coup' as a worthwhile analysis of how near-religious inflexibility over constitutional structure was a major factor in the 2000 election debacle.

[slingblade]

The question is, when you say the word 'America' in the sentence 'I love/dspise/fear America', what exactly do you mean?

The entire population of America? It's a big country - there must be someone you don't like.

The government of America? But that changes every four years, and presumably occasionally it's going to be people you voted against, doing stuff you don't agree with.

The power structures that underlie the government of America? It seems a rather abstract thing to get worked up about, and in any case this would be equivalent to stating that you will never brook any argument about the way your country is goverened (campaing funding etc) at that it is unpatriotic to do so.

The landmass itself? What is it about it's chemical composition that makes it more special than any other landmass?

This is the problem I have with patriotism - not that it's intrinsically evil, it's just that, like religion, the more you bring your brain to bear on it, the less it seems to make any kind of sense...

Good post, and I tend to agree.

[RandFan]

I'm aware that some Americans (I'm not one) view things like the constitution and the bill of rights as being inviolable...I'm not sure what this has to do with the point at hand.

...seems rather abstruse to feel genuine love for a set of legal framework documents. What is genuine love and who says we should have it for anything?

It also gets you into trouble occasionally.Loving anything will get you into trouble occassionally. What's your point?


I'd recommend Daniel Lazare's 'The Velvet Coup' as a worthwhile analysis of how near-religious inflexibility over constitutional structure was a major factor in the 2000 election debacle.I'm sorry, I'm guessing I missed something about some view of the constitution that I didn't see anyone make. Who is the poster who expressed such a view?

[RandFan]

The question is, when you say the word 'America' in the sentence 'I love/dspise/fear America', what exactly do you mean? I mean that I love the ideals for which my nation was founded on. The principle that all people have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This lead to an end of slavery in America. It led to the right of women to vote. It lead to civil rights for all. It promises due process, free speech and freedom of religion.

When I say I love America it is an abstract concept of liberty and justice. One however that has brought so many concrete realities even if it often didn't live up to the goal. As the framers put it, "a more perfect union". One that is flexible and can get better and perhaps most importantly, one that the people can steer if we would get off our collective rear ends.

[Matt the Poet]

I'm sorry, I'm guessing I missed something about some view of the constitution that I didn't see anyone make. Who is the poster who expressed such a view?

My last post was a response to Lonewulf, but may have overshot what he was actually trying to express. I was merely clarifying that I, like him, had differentiated the government from the structure of that government. My apologies for extrapolating this into an attitude which he may not have had.

You seem to have expressed a similar attitude in your own posting, however. I, too, am fairly enamoured of the abstract ideals of ‘liberty’ and ‘justice’, although in the concrete I’m aware that you can debate what those two words mean until the end of time.

As a Brit, for example, I personally consider our NHS, dilapidated though it is, to be a sublime expression of ‘justice’. Others might reasonably argue that taxing me to pay for the healthcare of others violates their idea of ‘liberty’. I might come to be swayed by this argument (it’s not happened yet) – that’s not a terribly stable platform from which to declare the sort of emotional attachment you describe.
.
And I’m unnerved by the idea that you think these things are unique to America in any case. Lots of other countries have managed to get universal suffrage, end slavery, encourage freedom of religion and expression etc. The fact that the US was founded on these principles is an expression of the fact that it was founded at all – most countries don’t have that sort of easily identifiable ‘first moment’.

To summarise these ramblings, your concept of patriotism:

1) Requires me to be absolutely secure, to the point of dogmatism, that my concepts of ‘liberty’ and ‘justice’ are the correct ones.
2) Makes it logically necessary for me either to love equally any other government that expresses those concepts, regardless of whether or not I live there, or to assert that only my government has the form that can truly achieve them.

I hope that my mind stays open enough never to achieve (1), and (2) is ideology, not patriotism.

[chocolatepossum]

I mean that I love the ideals for which my nation was founded on. The principle that all people have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This lead to an end of slavery in America. It led to the right of women to vote. It lead to civil rights for all. It promises due process, free speech and freedom of religion.

When I say I love America it is an abstract concept of liberty and justice. One however that has brought so many concrete realities even if it often didn't live up to the goal. As the framers put it, "a more perfect union". One that is flexible and can get better and perhaps most importantly, one that the people can steer if we would get off our collective rear ends.

Do you love other countries that embody those ideals, or do you not think there are any? Would you become a Russian patriot if their political system embraced those ideals and America abandoned them? I don't think there's anything wrong with what you're saying per se, but I don't see why you can't say "I love liberty" instead of "I love America". I think there is a lot of danger inherent in confusing the two concepts.

[MaGZ]

I selected only the first one. I think loyalty to your "tribe" is important, and I think all members of that "tribe" have a responsibility and a duty to protect and preserve that "tribe" if it is threatened. My country is my tribe.

New Zealand raised me. This country protected me and nurtured me as a baby. It educated me, and it continues to offer me protection, education, and a peaceful free society in which to live. I have no desire to ever fight to protect or defend my nation. But if my nation is ever threatened, I will fight for it. I will fight to ensure that the generations of New Zealanders that follow me will enjoy the same life that I have enjoyed. If necessary, I believe New Zealand is worth dying for.

There's a number of key considerations however. Firstly, is the tribe threatened?

Secondly, in the statement:

"Loyalty to a country worth defending is important."

The terms "loyalty", "worth defending" and "important" leave room for a variety of positions.

Most countries have treason laws that prohibit citizens from actively participating in, or inciting war against their own country. That seems reasonable and justified to me.

Does that mean citizens shouldn't be allowed to express sympathy for our perceived enemies? (Whether they actually pose a threat or not). I don't think so. One of the things that makes the country worth defending is that it allows citizens to express whatever view they wish.

No opinions should be outlawed. It is acting on that opinion that should not be permitted.

-Gumboot

My race is my "tribe." That is why I am a White Nationalist.

Gumboot,
At some point in time you "tribe" of New Zealand will be destroyed when it is no longer a White country.

[MaGZ]

I consider myself an American patriot. However, I am not proud of what America has become. If I ever fly an American flag, it will be the thirteen star 'Betsy Ross’ flag of the American Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_flag_13_stars_%E2%80%93_Betsy_Ross.svg

[Pardalis]

Missile at Ground Zero, this is the 21st century. Try to keep up.

[MaGZ]

Mexico. Okay, frankly, I think the best thing we could do for Mexico would be to round up every illegal alien in the US, truck them back to Mexico, and put a 20-foot high wall on the border, with guards every 100 feet and the authority to shoot to kill. Seriously. That would force the Mexican government to deal with its rampant corruption and cronyism that has kept Mexico poor, instead of exporting its poverty problems. [spoiler]Or it could spark mass rioting, insurrection, and civil war in our neighbor to the south.


Amen.
We need a fascist solution to our border problem. In addition, I would completely close the border with Mexico.

[MaGZ]

One could also ask, have they been good neighbors to us? Is it our fault that Haiti has always been such a basket case? Or that Cuba aligned itself with the Soviets? Other Caribbean island countries have not had such bad relationships with us. Is it possible that confirmation bias affects your perception here?

Haiti has been a basket case because the Black African population slaughtered the White population during the time of the French Revolution.

The French Revolution in San Domingo by Lothorp Stoddard
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02058963&id=iwQOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage

Lothrop Stoddard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard

[BPSCG]

Mexico. Okay, frankly, I think the best thing we could do for Mexico would be to round up every illegal alien in the US, truck them back to Mexico, and put a 20-foot high wall on the border, with guards every 100 feet and the authority to shoot to kill. Seriously. That would force the Mexican government to deal with its rampant corruption and cronyism that has kept Mexico poor, instead of exporting its poverty problems. Or it could spark mass rioting, insurrection, and civil war in our neighbor to the south.
Amen.
We need a fascist solution to our border problem. In addition, I would completely close the border with Mexico.

Dang. I was being about 75% tongue-in-cheek there. That post was born largely out of frustration over our government's inability and unwillingness to police its own borders, and Mexico's inability and unwillingness to deal with its core problems that make our southern neighbor poor while our northern one is prosperous.

And here MaGZ not only signs on with a seig heil! but goes a step or three beyond.

MaGZ, please do me a kindness and stay away from me and my posts; I can't stand the stench. And, in commemoration of our national day of independence, please read the first two paragraphs, as well as the last one, from our Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, and think about them, just a little bit. The guys who wrote those words would have little use for your filthy spew.
:USA:

[MaGZ]

Dang. I was being about 75% tongue-in-cheek there. That post was born largely out of frustration over our government's inability and unwillingness to police its own borders, and Mexico's inability and unwillingness to deal with its core problems that make our southern neighbor poor while our northern one is prosperous.

And here MaGZ not only signs on with a seig heil! but goes a step or three beyond.

MaGZ, please do me a kindness and stay away from me and my posts; I can't stand the stench. And, in commemoration of our national day of independence, please read the first two paragraphs, as well as the last one, from our Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, and think about them, just a little bit. The guys who wrote those words would have little use for your filthy spew.
:USA:

The founding fathers would be in agreement with many of my views. America was founded as an experiment in White self-government.

[RandFan]

To summarise these ramblings, your concept of patriotism:

1) Requires me to be absolutely secure, to the point of dogmatism, that my concepts of ‘liberty’ and ‘justice’ are the correct ones.
2) Makes it logically necessary for me either to love equally any other government that expresses those concepts, regardless of whether or not I live there, or to assert that only my government has the form that can truly achieve them.I have no idea as to how the first premise follows.
I love my wife not because she is superior in every way to anyone else nor do I love all other women equally to her. I love the ideals of my country for the benefits they afford me. I respect other countries who offer similar benefits to its citizens.

And I’m unnerved by the idea that you think these things are unique to America in any case. You are falling into the trap of assuming things not in evidence. Of course I don't think any such thing. On the contrary, I note frequently on this forum the high standard of living, freedoms and even perhaps superior benefits of other nations. I regularly praise the Netherlands, Canada and other European nations that I admit I could live in for various reasons. As one who is disappointed with my nation's health care and who is suffering without health insurance I easily see the potential benefits of other systems.

[D'rok]

The same emotions swell up in my breast every day when I see all those flags: Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could drop a couple of WMDs on someone today? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could engage in some expansionism today and make Ontario our 51st state?


In the immortal words of your fearless leader: Bring it on. You'd be lucky if we only burn down the White House this time. :p





please don't attack us again.

[RandFan]

The founding fathers would be in agreement with many of my views. America was founded as an experiment in White self-government.Please to demonstrate rhetoric from the founding fathers in support of your thesis?

[Mashuna]

Please to demonstrate rhetoric from the founding fathers in support of your thesis?

You're expecting evidence from a guy whose username refers to missiles at ground zero?

I admire your optimism :D

[RandFan]

You're expecting evidence from a guy whose username refers to missiles at ground zero?

I admire your optimism :DHopelessly. :D

[D'rok]

My race is my "tribe." That is why I am a White Nationalist.

What is this "white race" of which you speak? In fact, what is this idea of "race" of which you speak?

I'm "white" and you sure as hell aren't part of my tribe.

[Matt the Poet]

I have no idea as to how the first premise follows.

Well, you said that you love America as

an abstract concept of liberty and justice

and my point was that I don't see either of these things as abstract concepts. They are words you can only ascribe to actions and situations in the real world. I would hope that any open-minded person's ideas about what they are and what they mean in different circumstances are subject to change. So they aren't the sorts of things I can ascribe permanently to a country, a state, a government etc. as a reason for loving it.

I love my wife not because she is superior in every way to anyone else nor do I love all other women equally to her. I love the ideals of my country for the benefits they afford me. I respect other countries who offer similar benefits to its citizens

So you love the ideals of your country, but merely respect others which are similar? The wife analogy is good, but gets to the heart of my problem with patriotism generally. Women other than your wife have the same sort of properties that you admire in her, but there is something special about your wife that means that you love her and not these other women.

It seems reasonable for a person to have that property. My girlfriend has it too. I'm not sure it's equally reasonable for a landmass or a government.

You are falling into the trap of assuming things not in evidence

I took the evidence to be as follows:

The principle that all people have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This lead to an end of slavery in America. It led to the right of women to vote. It lead to civil rights for all.

This seemed to suggest that you thought America's founding principles logically (but, I will admit, perhaps not uniquely) led to such things - I would dispute that. For example the constitution may, eventually, have assisted the end of slavery, but only alongside the fact that it had already been banned in many other nations, that it wasn't terribly efficient economically speaking, that there was religious and secular agitation against it etc. etc.

History seems far too complex to suggest that a fistful of documents led to such wide-ranging consequences.

[Pardalis]

It seems reasonable for a person to have that property. My girlfriend has it too. I'm not sure it's equally reasonable for a landmass or a government.


Ever heard of Twin Peaks, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Peaks,_San_Francisco,_California)? :p

[Matt the Poet]

Ever heard of Twin Peaks, California?

[In the manner of Terry Thomas] I say! [/In the manner of Terry Thomas]

[D'rok]

and my point was that I don't see either of these things as abstract concepts. They are words you can only ascribe to actions and situations in the real world. I would hope that any open-minded person's ideas about what they are and what they mean in different circumstances are subject to change. So they aren't the sorts of things I can ascribe permanently to a country, a state, a government etc. as a reason for loving it.

These things are most assuredly abstract concepts. Political philosophers have been debating these ideas in the abstract for literally thousands of years. The quintessential work of political philosophy (Plato, Republic) is an entire volume dedicated to the attempt to define Justice and bring it from the abstract into the concrete. This is an ongoing and as yet incomplete project. The American experiment is part of that project - i.e., the effort to bring the abstract (justice, liberty etc) into the concrete. Loving this effort and thus loving America is a perfectly reasonable response.



So you love the ideals of your country, but merely respect others which are similar? The wife analogy is good, but gets to the heart of my problem with patriotism generally. Women other than your wife have the same sort of properties that you admire in her, but there is something special about your wife that means that you love her and not these other women.There is indeed something special about how one's wife or country actualizes the abstract. An ideal is brought forth in different ways even if the underlying ideal is essentially the same. It is the particular bringing forth that we love in our particular countries. It is the particular embodiment of "womanly virtue" that we love in our particular wives.

It seems reasonable for a person to have that property. My girlfriend has it too. I'm not sure it's equally reasonable for a landmass or a government.Governments have these properties. Landmasses...well that's a different kind of love.



This seemed to suggest that you thought America's founding principles logically (but, I will admit, perhaps not uniquely) led to such things - I would dispute that. For example the constitution may, eventually, have assisted the end of slavery, but only alongside the fact that it had already been banned in many other nations, that it wasn't terribly efficient economically speaking, that there was religious and secular agitation against it etc. etc.

History seems far too complex to suggest that a fistful of documents led to such wide-ranging consequences.Documents don't create these ideals. They express them in an attempt to bring forth the concrete from the abstract. As an expression of the ideals that we wish to bring forth into political reality, these documents are worthy of love, and so are the countries that are informed by them.

[RandFan]

Well, you said that you love America as

and my point was that I don't see either of these things as abstract concepts.How are they anything but abstract?

They are words you can only ascribe to actions and situations in the real world.No, they are abstractions. Period. There are real life consequences to those abstracts but they are abstract none the less.

I would hope that any open-minded person's ideas about what they are and what they mean in different circumstances are subject to change. So they aren't the sorts of things I can ascribe permanently to a country, a state, a government etc. as a reason for loving it. It's simple really, I compare the ideals and history of my nation to the ideals and history of others before America and using inductive logic I can infer that the ideals of America have had a profound impact on human society for good.

So you love the ideals of your country, but merely respect others which are similar? The wife analogy is good, but gets to the heart of my problem with patriotism generally. Women other than your wife have the same sort of properties that you admire in her, but there is something special about your wife that means that you love her and not these other women. Yes, exactly. And if I moved to Canada I could come to love Canada.

It seems reasonable for a person to have that property. My girlfriend has it too. I'm not sure it's equally reasonable for a landmass or a government. Again, it isn't simply a landmass or government but an ideal and it is reasonable. I can contrast and compare and evaluate my life in America and conclude that it is a good thing and that I love my country.

This seemed to suggest that you thought America's founding principles logically (but, I will admit, perhaps not uniquely) led to such things - I would dispute that.Then we must disagree. There is little question that those who fought for the end of slavery appealed to the ideals of the constitution for their impetus. More importantly it has been the Constitution that the Supreme Court has relied on again and again to rule for minority and civil rights. I don't see much argument here.

For example the constitution may, eventually, have assisted the end of slavery, but only alongside the fact that it had already been banned in many other nations, that it wasn't terribly efficient economically speaking, that there was religious and secular agitation against it etc. etc.

History seems far too complex to suggest that a fistful of documents led to such wide-ranging consequences.And no one is making that argument. It is the ideals that the nation was founded on and the ideals enshrined in those documents.

Are you sincerely arguing that the Constitution of The United States has had little to no influence in shaping American society and ethics?

[MaGZ]

Please to demonstrate rhetoric from the founding fathers in support of your thesis?

The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's phrase
"all men are created equal"


http://mattbrundage.com/publications/jeffersonequality.html

[RandFan]

The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's phrase
"all men are created equal"


http://mattbrundage.com/publications/jeffersonequality.html

America was founded as an experiment in White self-government.

Something doesn't make sense. How does "all men are created equal" demonstrate that America is an experiment in "white" self-government.

[MaGZ]

What is this "white race" of which you speak? In fact, what is this idea of "race" of which you speak?

I'm "white" and you sure as hell aren't part of my tribe.

Is you point, White people don’t exist or race does not exist?

If neither exists, how can you claim to be White?

[D'rok]

Is you point, White people don’t exist or race does not exist?

Both.

If neither exists, how can you claim to be White?

I don't. Thus the "quotes". But you would recognize me as part of the granfalloon you call "white".

[RandFan]

Is you point, White people don’t exist or race does not exist?

If neither exists, how can you claim to be White?Seems pretty clear to me. "White race".

Genetically the difference between any two random individuals is as great as any difference between individuals of different skin color.

Race is a human construct.

ETA: My appologies for attempting to speak for Droc.

[MaGZ]

Something doesn't make sense. How does "all men are created equal" demonstrate that America is an experiment in "white" self-government.

This may be news to you, but America was established by White people. There were no Asians , no Blacks, no Jews in the founding of America. I guess today they don’t teach this in American history classes.

[RandFan]

This may be news to you, but America was established by White people. There were no Asians , no Blacks, no Jews in the founding of America. Yes this is true but it is incidental. It doesn't prove that the founding fathers intended for it to be exclusive to whites.

[D'rok]

Something doesn't make sense. How does "all men are created equal" demonstrate that America is an experiment in "white" self-government.

MaGZ longs for a simpler time when only "white, male property owners" were citizens and thus bearers of Lockean natural rights. For his sake, let's hope he owns property or his 18th century utopia will be a decidedly unpleasant place for him to be.

[D'rok]

Seems pretty clear to me. "White race".

Genetically the difference between any two random individuals is as great as any difference between individuals of different skin color.

Race is a human construct.

ETA: My appologies for attempting to speak for Droc.

Spoken truly.

[MaGZ]

Both.



I don't. Thus the "quotes". But you would recognize me as part of the granfalloon you call "white".

I would be interested in knowing at what point in time did you realize you were not White? Did this happen in high school?

The same question for Randfan. Also it would be helpful if you could provide you ages.

[RandFan]

MaGZ longs for a simpler time when only "white, male property owners" were citizens and thus bearers of Lockean natural rights. For his sake, let's hope he owns property or his 18th century utopia will be a decidedly unpleasant place for him to be.Thanks, and to be intellectually honest "white, male property owners" was the common definition for a number of the framers.

[Pardalis]

My skin is beige. It has a tendency to turn reddish in the summer if I'm not careful, and when I get sick it tends towards the green. I once turned blue when I choked on a chicken bone.

Seems I'm not white at all.

[RandFan]

I would be interested in knowing at what point in time did you realize you were not White? Did this happen in high school? Oh, I have such a good memory of the exact time. It was watching Jane Elliott's Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes experiment (http://janeelliott.com/videos.htm). I'm no more "white" than blue eyed or brown hair. The designation is arbitrary and silly. It's just a phenotype.

Can you imagine dividing along the lines of hair color or eye color? How about the way in which we crack an egg (http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/jonathan-swift--end.html).

The same question for Randfan. Also it would be helpful if you could provide you ages.46

[MaGZ]

Yes this is true but it is incidental. It doesn't prove that the founding fathers intended for it to be exclusive to whites.

The White founding fathers had the option to making the Africa slaves and the Indians within the borders of the new nation equal citizens, but they did not.

I wonder why? (I think the answer was they were White racists)

[D'rok]

My skin is beige. It has a tendency to turn reddish in the summer if I'm not careful, and when I get sick it tends towards the green. I once turned blue when I choked on a chicken bone.

Seems I'm not white at all.

No property or citizenship for you then.

[RandFan]

The White founding fathers had the option to making the Africa slaves and the Indians within the borders of the new nation equal citizens, but they did not.

I wonder why? (I think the answer was they were White racists)

MaGZ, I will concede that the framers didn't see non-whites like Native Americans and Blacks as citizens and therefore there is, to a point, truth to your thesis.

That said, there is no rhetoric in the founding fathers outlining that race was a significant component of the "experiment". It's just the way things were. Yes, I concede that they were "racist" to varying degrees. I judge that by the standards of their times. Now that we know that the views were anachronistic we can easily include non-whites and females without fundamentally changing the experiment.

[MaGZ]

Oh, I have such a good memory of the exact time. It was watching Jane Elliott's Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes experiment (http://janeelliott.com/videos.htm). I'm no more "white" than blue eyed or brown hair. The designation is arbitrary and silly. It's just a phenotype.

Can you imagine dividing along the lines of hair color or eye color? How about the way in which we crack an egg (http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/jonathan-swift--end.html).

46

With that type of reasoning how can you argue you are human when compared to primates.

In you mind isn’t humanity, like race, just a construct.

[Boo]

My option is best expressed by Mark Twain: 'Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it.'



Boo

[MaGZ]

MaGZ, I will concede that the framers didn't see non-whites like Native Americans and Blacks as citizens and therefore there is, to a point, truth to your thesis.

That said, there is no rhetoric in the founding fathers outlining that race was a significant component of the "experiment". It's just the way things were. Yes, I concede that they were "racist" to varying degrees. I judge that by the standards of their times. Now that we know that the views were anachronistic we can easily include non-whites and females without fundamentally changing the experiment.

So you agree with me, when we honor the founding fathers of America we are honoring White racists?

[RandFan]

With that type of reasoning how can you argue you are human when compared to primates.

Humans:

Document their history and therefore are capable of analyzing said history in order to learn from mistakes.
Contemplate their role in the universe and seek to find meaning and understanding of humanity.
Are capable of reasoning and therefore understanding ethical implications of empathy and the futility of judging others by a phenotype.
Are moral agents.
Codify rules of behavior.
Can figure out that there is no significant differences between humans.
Have no more genetic differences between any two random humans as they do any two individuals of different skin color.
Have more genetic difference between humans and other primates than between any two humans.
In you mind isn’t humanity, like race, just a construct.One could argue that it is and there is some basis for such a conclusion. The problem is that there are very real and concrete differences between humans and other animals. If blinded we could still tell the difference. Could you, blinded, pick out individuals based on race?

[RandFan]

So you agree with me, when we honor the founding fathers of America we are honoring White racists?Yes. However we are not honoring them for being racist. Racism, like the belief in humors and blood letting was based on ignorance. We've come a long way since then. We honor the founders for their accomplishments and not their sins.

[D'rok]

Yes. However we are not honoring them for being racist. Racism, like the belief in humors and blood letting was based on ignorance. We've come a long way since then. We honor the founders for their accomplishments and not their sins.


Nicely said.

[MaGZ]

Humans:

Document their history and therefore are capable of analyzing said history in order to learn from mistakes.
Contemplate their role in the universe and seek to find meaning and understanding of humanity.
Are capable of reasoning and therefore understanding ethical implications of empathy and the futility of judging others by a phenotype.
Are moral agents.
Codify rules of behavior.
Can figure out that there is no significant differences between humans.
Have no more genetic differences between any two random humans as they do any two individuals of different skin color.
Have more genetic difference between humans and other primates than between any two humans.One could argue that it is and there is some basis for such a conclusion. The problem is that there are very real and concrete differences between humans and other animals. If blinded we could still tell the difference. Could you, blinded, pick out individuals based on race?

Equality: Man's Most Dangerous Myth
by Dr. William L. Pierce

http://www.stormfront.org/racediff/equality.html

[Pardalis]

Stormfront... now, should I take this source seriously? :eusa_think:

[RandFan]

Equality: Man's Most Dangerous Myth
by Dr. William L. Pierce

http://www.stormfront.org/racediff/equality.htmlAnd it rears its ugly head. Stormfront?

[RandFan]

Stormfront... now, should I take this source seriously? :eusa_think:I know, let's get Oliver.

[RandFan]

Ignorance on parade. From MaGZ Stormfront article.

The culture of a race, free of alien influences, is telling evidence of that race's essential nature. The African Negro with a cow-dung hairdo, a bone through his nose, and teeth filed down to sharp points, in other words, presents to us a far more accurate image of the Negro essence than does the American Black in a business suit who has been trained to drive an automobile, operate a typewriter, and speak flawless English. Yes Virginia, racism is alive and well in the 21st century.

[D'rok]

Is there something in the 9/11 truther manifesto that says "in addition to my truther beliefs, I must be a sociopathic nutjob"? Can't they manage to put a cap on the crazy somehow? Missiles ought to be enough crazy for anyone.

[RandFan]

Pardalis,

Do you consider all White Nationalists to be neo-nazis?No, but many are. Many are just ignorant racists.

[MaGZ]

Is there something in the 9/11 truther manifesto that says "in addition to my truther beliefs, I must be a sociopathic nutjob"? Can't they manage to put a cap on the crazy somehow? Missiles ought to be enough crazy for anyone.

Dork stay tuned.

Loose Change has interview Berry Jennings who experienced the missile explosion at 9:03am at WTC 7 on 9/11.

Coming soon to a theater near you.

[RandFan]

Loose Change has interview Berry Jennings who experienced the missile explosion at 9:03am at WTC 7 on 9/11.OMG, really? Oh hell... devestating, just devestating. Anecdotal, witness testimony, that's never wrong.

[D'rok]

Dork stay tuned.


I'm not a Dork; I'm a 12th level Paladin. :p

[Pardalis]

OMG, really? Oh hell... devestating, just devestating. Anecdotal, witness testimony, that's never wrong.

Especially when that witness only heard a loud noise, never actually saw a missile. :rolleyes:

[D'rok]

Loose Change has interview Berry Jennings who experienced the missile explosion at 9:03am at WTC 7 on 9/11.


Explosions = missiles?



ETA: Pardalis beat me to it.

[MaGZ]

Especially when that witness only heard a loud noise, never actually saw a missile. :rolleyes:

Jennings said he experienced an explosion inside WTC 7 before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

No he did not see the missile hit, because he was inside the building (WTC 7).

He experienced the missile explosion but did not see it coming.

[RandFan]

Jennings said he experienced an explosion inside WTC 7 before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

No he did not see the missile hit, because he was inside the building (WTC 7).

He experienced the missile explosion but did not see it coming.See you guys, you and your skepticism. This guy experienced an explosion, what else could it have possibly been but a missle? Heelllooooooooo.... Alien missles from mars, duh.

[DanishDynamite]

I think this kind of biased behavior is pretty pervasive in our culture. Perhaps this is a side effect of our culture of free speech and our legal system.
I suspect it is a side effect of your odd form of democracy. Your system of democracy results in what is effectively a two party system. Given only two viable sides to choose from, rabid acrimony between people who differ only slightly on views, but who must choose just one of the two possible sides, is inevitable.

[RandFan]

I suspect it is a side effect of your odd form of democracy. Your system of democracy results in what is effectively a two party system. Given only two viable sides to choose from, rabid acrimony between people who differ only slightly on views, but who must choose just one of the two possible sides, is inevitable.Sounds like supposition and post hoc reasoning to me.

[DanishDynamite]

Sounds like supposition and post hoc reasoning to me.
Could you explain how?

[RandFan]

Could you explain how?Sure.

You don't have any proof that A causes B. You simply suppose that it does.

The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. You could be right but do you have any resason for anyone to agree?

[DanishDynamite]

Sure.

You don't have any proof that A causes B. You simply suppose that it does.

You could be right but do you have any resason for anyone to agree?
You have defined "post hoc ergo propter hoc". I already understood this latin expression.

Once again, could you explain how my post..
I suspect it is a side effect of your odd form of democracy. Your system of democracy results in what is effectively a two party system. Given only two viable sides to choose from, rabid acrimony between people who differ only slightly on views, but who must choose just one of the two possible sides, is inevitable.
...qualifies?

Thanks.

[BPSCG]

But you would recognize me as part of the granfalloon you call "white".Interesting you bring up Vonnegut here.

I think it was in The Sirens of Titan where the inhabitants of another planet (Tralfamadore, mayhap?) turn their heads away and cover their eyes whenever someone says something embarrassingly stupid.

Anyone have a "covering your eyes" smilie for the following?

This may be news to you, but America was established by White people. There were no Asians , no Blacks, no Jews in the founding of America. I guess today they don’t teach this in American history classes.

The White founding fathers had the option to making the Africa slaves and the Indians within the borders of the new nation equal citizens, but they did not.

I wonder why? (I think the answer was they were White racists)

With that type of reasoning how can you argue you are human when compared to primates.

In you mind isn’t humanity, like race, just a construct.

So you agree with me, when we honor the founding fathers of America we are honoring White racists?

Dork stay tuned.

Loose Change has interview Berry Jennings who experienced the missile explosion at 9:03am at WTC 7 on 9/11.

Coming soon to a theater near you.

Jennings said he experienced an explosion inside WTC 7 before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

No he did not see the missile hit, because he was inside the building (WTC 7).

He experienced the missile explosion but did not see it coming.

[DanishDynamite]

*Chuckle* :)

Nice one, BPSCG.

[RandFan]

You have defined "post hoc ergo propter hoc". I already understood this latin expression.

Once again, could you explain how my post..

...qualifies?

Thanks.I clearly did. You have not established a connection between A and B. Come on DD. This is not rocket science.

[RandFan]

You don't have any proof that A causes B. You simply suppose that it does. I'm at a loss as to how much clearer I could be.

One does not necassarily cause the other. You are assuming a connection. Can you demonstrate the connection? It's your claim and your responsibility.

I'm waiting.

[Earthborn]

Can you demonstrate the connection?Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law).

[Puppycow]

Interesting you bring up Vonnegut here.

I think it was in The Sirens of Titan where the inhabitants of another planet (Tralfamadore, mayhap?) turn their heads away and cover their eyes whenever someone says something embarrassingly stupid.

Anyone have a "covering your eyes" smilie for the following?

:covereyes :covereyes :covereyes :covereyes :covereyes :covereyes

A wise person, I can't remember who it was, once said something like this:

Never wrestle a pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it.

[RandFan]

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law).Thanks but I'm not sure what it is supposed to prove.

[RandFan]

You have defined "post hoc ergo propter hoc". I already understood this latin expression.

Once again, could you explain how my post..

...qualifies?

Thanks.{sigh}

You make a statement of cause and effect.

Given only two viable sides to choose from, rabid acrimony between people who differ only slightly on views, but who must choose just one of the two possible sides, is inevitable.

Cause: Only two choices.
Effect: Rabid acrimony.

Let Cause = A.
Let Effect = B.

To the extent that there is B (which you haven't even established but fine, lets assume that it exists for the purpose of argument) can you demonstrate that it is caused by A?

Can you demonstrate that there is less acrimony in other systems?

[Puppycow]

I suspect it is a side effect of your odd form of democracy. Your system of democracy results in what is effectively a two party system. Given only two viable sides to choose from, rabid acrimony between people who differ only slightly on views, but who must choose just one of the two possible sides, is inevitable.

Maybe that is part of it too. Actually, after reconsidering it, I think it's more a result of human nature and confirmation bias. Once you make any kind of commitment in one direction, you tend to get into a kind of positive reinforcement cycle. This happens even to scientists: Once a scientist develops a certain theory, many tend to stick with it even after evidence points in another direction. The mark of a really good scientist, IMO, is that she is willing to admit that her pet theory is wrong when that's where the eveidence leads.

For example. Once the link between HIV and AIDS was not as clear as it is now. Certain scientists had alternative theories. Amazingly, some still cling to those theories, even a few formerly reputable researchers. This is not unique to America. Once you make a certain commitment to an idea, confirmation bias kicks in, so that you will continue to notice evidence that confirms it, while being less likely to notice that does not confirm it.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think it was in The Sirens of Titan where the inhabitants of another planet (Tralfamadore, mayhap?) turn their heads away and cover their eyes whenever someone says something embarrassingly stupid.



Slaughterhouse Five, surely? :covereyes