Patriotism - what does it mean?

[Alien826]

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." - Charles de Gaulle

A good quote, but sometimes it's hard to distinguish one from the other.
We Germans have a problem with patriotism. Saying that you are a patriot puts you in the extreme right corner here. And that's OK. Love of people should come first, before someone thinks about their own country.

I tend to dislike nationalism as it is largely seen as "my country, right or wrong". Germans learned that the hard way in WW2. I think I'd prefer dropping the word altogether and talking about it in a different way.

As a thought experiment, what justification is there for supporting your own country over others, when self defense is not involved? You may think that your way of life is the best, but so do others. And what is a country? It's not an area of land (other than geographically), it can only be the people in it. And once you start saying "our people are better than other countries' people", what do you mean? As a whole? The average person? By what standard?

 

[anna.]

This is exactly what I was hoping for. A broad discussion on the subject. Would you like to define patriotism your way so we can (maybe) add it to the list?

Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. I'll start with just a bit - to me, patriotism unites, it doesn't divide. Patriotism isn't used as a weapon, or a litmus of acceptable levels of eligibility; that is, it doesn't check for purity at the expense of its humanity. Patriotism understands that people as individuals and governments of countries can and do make mistakes, work for misguided or evil outcomes, and the individuals and countries who do these things are not beyond scrutiny just because one claims membership. I think it's quite all right to think one's country is the greatest country in the world, because a sense of home and place, and identity with tribe, is innate human nature. So I like the aspiration, as @Pogo said, in your first definition, I like the sense of attachment to place of origin, and I accept the idea in the second definition that that sense of origin and identity can become pathological. The zealot and the nationalist move beyond an innate sense of national belonging to something outside that, something that exerts an outside force on others to make them compliant, or to deny them the same membership or the same equality of membership. So it becomes about power. And then enters nationalism, racism, xenophobia.

I have no idea if that makes sense...

 

[Alien826]

Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. I'll start with just a bit - to me, patriotism unites, it doesn't divide. Patriotism isn't used as a weapon, or a litmus of acceptable levels of eligibility; that is, it doesn't check for purity at the expense of its humanity. Patriotism understands that people as individuals and governments of countries can and do make mistakes, work for misguided or evil outcomes, and the individuals and countries who do these things are not beyond scrutiny just because one claims membership.

OK.

I think it's quite all right to think one's country is the greatest country in the world, because a sense of home and place, and identity with tribe, is innate human nature.

That's fine, but don't you need to add "for me" to "the greatest country"? It's true that people feel more comfortable in familiar surroundings, but is that a valid reason to claim that the whole country is superior to others?

So I like the aspiration, as @Pogo said, in your first definition, I like the sense of attachment to place of origin, and I accept the idea in the second definition that that sense of origin and identity can become pathological. The zealot and the nationalist move beyond an innate sense of national belonging to something outside that, something that exerts an outside force on others to make them compliant, or to deny them the same membership or the same equality of membership. So it becomes about power. And then enters nationalism, racism, xenophobia.

I think you have my definitions backward, but given that I agree.

I have no idea if that makes sense...

It does, though I think much of what you say might just be good behavior, regardless of support for one's country?

Quite honestly, I'd prefer to just decide how we should behave towards other people, regardless of anything that tends to put us in different "boxes". I like to think of myself as a member of "all sentient creatures" and treat them all with equal respect and consideration. That may be too broad for most people though.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Down with nationalism. I am for a one-world government. Of course I am not naive enough to think it will happen!

It is not only possible it is inevitable, it is the next stage in the evolution of humanity as they build a lesser peace.

Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole.

The lesser peace will see set National boundaries, but eventually there will be "no nation with separate and restricted boundaries -- such as Persia, for instance -- will exist. The United States of America will be known only as a name. Germany, France, England, Turkey, Arabia -- all these various nations will be welded together in unity. When the people of the future are asked, "To which nationality do you belong?" the answer will be, "To the nationality of humanity.......... I belong to the army of the Most Great Peace." The people of the future will not say, "I belong to the nation of England, France or Persia"; for all of them will be citizens of a universal nationality -- the one family, the one country, the one world of humanity -- and then these wars, hatreds and strifes will pass away."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 18

Regards Tony

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you mean who is saying it and to whom?

The first definition seems to be mainly politicians aimed at potential voters, but that's not all of it as people (in the USA) seem to have been raised to feel that way from an early age.

The second is imo an enlightened form of response to the first, and anyone can say it to anyone.

Is that close?

Well a bit warm but a little off i think. I was thinking of the manner on how patriotism can be viewed.

I mean we could see patriotism in totalitarian countries where it's the government that's telling the people to be patriotic , rather than the other way around with the people being patriotic about their government and nation, which was the point I was trying to make.

 

[anna.]

That's fine, but don't you need to add "for me" to "the greatest country"? It's true that people feel more comfortable in familiar surroundings, but is that a valid reason to claim that the whole country is superior to others?

You can add it, or it can be implicitly understood in the same way most parents think their kids are the most beautiful kids they've ever seen. People understand that, don't you think?

I think you have my definitions backward, but given that I agree.

In what way?

It does, though I think much of what you say might just be good behavior, regardless of support for one's country?

No, I'm drawing a bright line between innate human instinct for home and tribe and the dark side of that when it moves beyond how you feel when you see your city lights below you as the plane descends, or your flag flying on your country's embassy in a foreign land, and the power moves of a government or individuals based on ideas of racial purity, the country you emigrated from or the religion you belong to.

Quite honestly, I'd prefer to just decide how we should behave towards other people, regardless of anything that tends to put us in different "boxes". I like to think of myself as a member of "all sentient creatures" and treat them all with equal respect and consideration. That may be too broad for most people though.

Now that sounds more like the good behavior you were referring to. That's the golden rule. You can observe the golden rule and still be patriotic. It would be harder to observe the golden rule while being say, a Christian nationalist.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

In thinking about the terms "patriotism" and "nationalism", which have both been referenced in the thread, I think both reflect the same core values of love of and loyalty to a country or nation. I think both allow for negative attitudes towards "others".

To my mind, patriotism connotes doing something for, or on behalf of ones country. It requires an action to be patriotic. Nationalism, on the other hand, simply references a set of attitudes one holds.

A nationalist talks the talk, a patriot walks the walk.

 

[Alien826]

You can add it, or it can be implicitly understood in the same way most parents think their kids are the most beautiful kids they've ever seen. People understand that, don't you think?

I'm not sure. For kids, yes. I think some people really believe this "American exceptionalism" nonsense.

In what way?

I seemed that you were reversing my definitions ("first" and "second") when you commented on them.

No, I'm drawing a bright line between innate human instinct for home and tribe and the dark side of that when it moves beyond how you feel when you see your city lights below you as the plane descends, or your flag flying on your country's embassy in a foreign land, and the power moves of a government or individuals based on ideas of racial purity, the country you emigrated from or the religion you belong to.

Those are different, yes. It's arguable whether the feeling of comfort or relief that we feel when we enter a familiar space is truly patriotism, but OK.

Now that sounds more like the good behavior you were referring to. That's the golden rule. You can observe the golden rule and still be patriotic. It would be harder to observe the golden rule while being say, a Christian nationalist.

Hmmm. Do you think "treat others as I would like to be treated" applies when I am inferring that their country is inferior to mine? It suggests that I want them to say their country is better then mine.

 

[anna.]

I'm not sure. For kids, yes. I think some people really believe this "American exceptionalism" nonsense.

Who am I to argue with de Tocqueville?

There's quite a lot of room between American exceptionalism and thinking it's unique and has a unique place in history. Many countries will claim their unique place in history. Greece, Egypt, Italy, and so on.

Those are different, yes. It's arguable whether the feeling of comfort or relief that we feel when we enter a familiar space is truly patriotism, but OK.

It's a facet of it. Love of homeland (even while seeing it as imperfect).

Hmmm. Do you think "treat others as I would like to be treated" applies when I am inferring that their country is inferior to mine? It suggests that I want them to say their country is better then mine.

Maybe I don't necessarily ascribe ill intent. Context is everything. A friendly rivalry or jingoism? I guess I don't want to feel the pressure to be more global in my identity any more than you might not want to feel pressure to be less global.

 

[Alien826]

Who am I to argue with de Tocqueville?

I looked him up and after reading about 50 of the 300 quotes on a "quotes" website I failed to get a single coherent message from him, though no doubt a more thorough investigation would be indicated. Anyway, which of the multitude of quotes to you think is most appropriate to this subject? Incidentally, I found his opinions to vary from (to me) reasonable observations to the most objectionable form of libertarianism.

There's quite a lot of room between American exceptionalism and thinking it's unique and has a unique place in history. Many countries will claim their unique place in history. Greece, Egypt, Italy, and so on.

There is? It seems to have a fairly simple and straightforward meaning. "We're the best and it's our duty to gift the rest of the world with our wonderfulness".

Unique, maybe. The attempt to form a democracy out of such a disparate population is probably unique. This would be the idea of the "great experiment". A noble attempt by those that see it that way, but I fear that so far the result of the experiment is "you can't do it". Let's keep trying though, some good has come from it and more may come after the current bump in the road.

It's a facet of it. Love of homeland (even while seeing it as imperfect).

I think you are expanding something that applies to a few way past it's indication for the many.

Maybe I don't necessarily ascribe ill intent. Context is everything. A friendly rivalry or jingoism? I guess I don't want to feel the pressure to be more global in my identity any more than you might not want to feel pressure to be less global.

It certainly depends on the person and the approach. Globalism as in co-operation for good ends or globalism as in multinational companies' gaming the system? Incidentally I don't support globalism as a single goal, at least not yet. It would be good for the countries to demonstrate the ability to manage their own patches well before taking on the much bigger task involved with a world government with all the many languages, cultures and so on.

Hmmm, maybe if the USA manages to succeed in it's "experiment" it could be a model for a world government. A long way to go, but it is a kind of model of the world in terms of cultural diversity. Interesting thought. What do you think?

 

[anna.]

I looked him up and after reading about 50 of the 300 quotes on a "quotes" website I failed to get a single coherent message from him, though no doubt a more thorough investigation would be indicated. Anyway, which of the multitude of quotes to you think is most appropriate to this subject? Incidentally, I found his opinions to vary from (to me) reasonable observations to the most objectionable form of libertarianism.

I have on my bookshelf his Democracy in America, in which he used the word exceptional; he's the first writer/social scientist/historian known to have used the term in relation to America. I haven't read it cover to cover (one of these days... ) although I do browse it on a regular basis because it was a gift I'd given my mom and when she passed away it came back to me.

Here it is, halfway through the volume. The page number is low because it's in the Second Part:

Have to run for now, I'll be back later today to reply to the rest of you post.

 

[anna.]

There is? It seems to have a fairly simple and straightforward meaning. "We're the best and it's our duty to gift the rest of the world with our wonderfulness".

Not necessarily. The first definition for the word exceptional in Merriam-Webster is "forming an exception. Rare." The second is "Better than average. Superior." And the third is "deviating from the norm." Maybe the definition of exceptionalism has more nuance than one might think at first glance. The formative history of the United States could certainly be seen an exception, and deviating from the norm. Would you agree?

Unique, maybe. The attempt to form a democracy out of such a disparate population is probably unique. This would be the idea of the "great experiment". A noble attempt by those that see it that way, but I fear that so far the result of the experiment is "you can't do it". Let's keep trying though, some good has come from it and more may come after the current bump in the road.

Definitely unique in world history. I don't believe America is without fault, not at all, but I also don't see it as failing. Trump only sees decline, and oddly enough, that's often what you hear at the other end of the political spectrum as well, that America has failed, and only another revolution can fix it. I don't believe that either.

I think you are expanding something that applies to a few way past it's indication for the many. [/quot]

I don't think I am. The way the nation came together after 9/11 is the first best example that comes to mind. You can't just love your country, you have to love your people too. Not in a 'blood and soil' kind of way, either.

It certainly depends on the person and the approach. Globalism as in co-operation for good ends or globalism as in multinational companies' gaming the system? Incidentally I don't support globalism as a single goal, at least not yet. It would be good for the countries to demonstrate the ability to manage their own patches well before taking on the much bigger task involved with a world government with all the many languages, cultures and so on.

Hmmm, maybe if the USA manages to succeed in it's "experiment" it could be a model for a world government. A long way to go, but it is a kind of model of the world in terms of cultural diversity. Interesting thought. What do you think?

Okay, full disclosure here. Maybe it's my Celtic blood, I don't know, but I've definitely got a bit of the tribal in me. There will never be globalism as nirvana because people just aren't wired that way. I've loved the countries I've visited, and I see them doing things oftentimes better than we do them here. In some ways. In other ways, I'm glad for our health regulations, our building codes, and our accessibility requirements for the elderly and the disabled. I admire other countries for many things, and each country can say there is only one France, only one Italy, only one United States. I don't see anything wrong with that, if it's not done as an Ugly American. With belligerence, with arrogance, with entitlement.

 

[fantome profane]

This has been inspired by the DNC which, though I support the Dems fully, drifted into a definition of patriotism that I don't like.

Before I begin, please stick to the main subject and not get into politics, though I understand that's difficult on this subject.

Definition #1: My country is the greatest country in the entire world, if not the universe. Anyone who says anything else is a traitor at the least. Any criticism of my country is totally unwarranted and should be punished in some way.

A quote from somewhere that I will reproduce from memory is "An irrational attachment to an area of the planet because I happen to have been born there".

Definition #2: My country leaves a lot to be desired and its history contains things we should be ashamed of, but the principles that were set out by our founders are good ones. I will work to make the country more on line with those principles so we can be truly proud of what it is rather than what it aspires to be.

Comments please.

There is something that was pointed out to me by someone, and I wish I could remember who so I could give them credit here, but I can't. But the idea is worth expressing nonetheless.


When Americans think of their founding fathers, one word they almost always use to describe them is "patriots". But if these people were patriots, they were patriots before the constitution was written, they were patriots before the flag was created, and before the national anthem was written. If these people were patriots they were patriots before the nation even gained its independence.

So what did it mean for them to be patriots? What was it that they loved? It wasn't the constitution, flag, or anthem. And it wasn't the "purple mountains" as wonderful as they are, there are beautiful landscapes and natural wonders all over the planet.

So what was it? It can only have been one thing, there is only one thing left. That is the people. It can only have been a love for their fellow Americans and a desire for them to prosper. And if that is what it meant back then, perhaps that is still what it means today. And if so, you need to understand, you can't be a patriot if you hate 50% of the people who live in your country.

 

[Sargonski]

This has been inspired by the DNC which, though I support the Dems fully, drifted into a definition of patriotism that I don't like.

Before I begin, please stick to the main subject and not get into politics, though I understand that's difficult on this subject.

Definition #1: My country is the greatest country in the entire world, if not the universe. Anyone who says anything else is a traitor at the least. Any criticism of my country is totally unwarranted and should be punished in some way.

A quote from somewhere that I will reproduce from memory is "An irrational attachment to an area of the planet because I happen to have been born there".

Definition #2: My country leaves a lot to be desired and its history contains things we should be ashamed of, but the principles that were set out by our founders are good ones. I will work to make the country more on line with those principles so we can be truly proud of what it is rather than what it aspires to be.

Comments please.

The definition of a Patriot is one who tries to limit the power and correct the errors of Gov't in quest for better union.

 

[Alien826]

The definition of a Patriot is one who tries to limit the power and correct the errors of Gov't in quest for better union.

Don't see that definition here ....

patriot /pā′trē-ət, -ŏt″/

noun​

1. One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.
2. One who loves his country, and zealously supports its authority and interests.
3. A person who loves and zealously supports and defends his or her country.
4. A fellow countryman, a compatriot.
5. One who loves and defends his or her country.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Neither of those is patriotism, or even nationalism. Patriotism is a sense of duty and service towards your nation. Nationalism is a form of policy orientation that places the needs of the nation first before other nations, strives for self-reliance and tends towards more protectionist policies; or even a type of national liberation (for the more left-wing) or national renewal/awakening (for the more right-wing). Nationalism can manifest in a variety of political orientations, from far-left to far-right to centrism and whatever else.

 

[Alien826]

Not necessarily. The first definition for the word exceptional in Merriam-Webster is "forming an exception. Rare." The second is "Better than average. Superior." And the third is "deviating from the norm." Maybe the definition of exceptionalism has more nuance than one might think at first glance. The formative history of the United States could certainly be seen an exception, and deviating from the norm. Would you agree?

Yes, but the question is what do people mean when they say "American exceptionalism"? That would suggest your second definition is probably more accurate. People don't mean just "rare" as in a black sheep in a field of white sheep. I found a wiki page that contains this.

American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is either distinctive, unique, or exemplary compared to other nations.[1] Proponents argue that the values, political system, and historical development of the U.S. are unique in human history, often with the implication that it is both destined and entitled to play a distinct and positive role on the world stage.[2]

It originates in the observations and writings of French political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville, most notably in his comparison of the United States with Great Britain and his native France. Tocqueville was the first writer to describe the country as "exceptional" following his travels there in 1831.[3] The earliest documented use of the specific term "American exceptionalism" is by American communists in intra-communist disputes in the late 1920s.[4]

There's lots more, it's worth a read. American exceptionalism - Wikipedia

I think i can sum up what I don't like about it is the idea (expressed by some, often politicians) that the USA is the best country in the world and needs no improvement. I think we agree on that, do we not?

Your previous post noted and read, btw.

Definitely unique in world history. I don't believe America is without fault, not at all, but I also don't see it as failing. Trump only sees decline, and oddly enough, that's often what you hear at the other end of the political spectrum as well, that America has failed, and only another revolution can fix it. I don't believe that either.

Both these examples come from people who want to sow fear to their own advantage. I think we can ignore them both.

As I see it, it's a mixture. It has been very slow to adopt things like universal voting, truly freeing black people and "socialistic" things like universal health care. On the other hand, it has done so, largely. Compared to places like North Korea, it's close to heaven. Compared to many European nations, it's OK, but needs improvement.

I don't think I am. The way the nation came together after 9/11 is the first best example that comes to mind. You can't just love your country, you have to love your people too. Not in a 'blood and soil' kind of way, either.

War like situations will do that. They don't tend to last past the end of the war, unfortunately. Britain in WW2 was very united, but we kicked out Churchill's Conservative party at the next election and the Labour party instituted all kinds of socialist stuff.

Addressing "loving the people", that's admirable, certainly. But why does it stop at the border, and if it doesn't, why call it "patriotism"?

Okay, full disclosure here. Maybe it's my Celtic blood, I don't know, but I've definitely got a bit of the tribal in me. There will never be globalism as nirvana because people just aren't wired that way. I've loved the countries I've visited, and I see them doing things oftentimes better than we do them here. In some ways. In other ways, I'm glad for our health regulations, our building codes, and our accessibility requirements for the elderly and the disabled. I admire other countries for many things, and each country can say there is only one France, only one Italy, only one United States. I don't see anything wrong with that, if it's not done as an Ugly American. With belligerence, with arrogance, with entitlement.

Understood. I could put together a "perfect" (for me) country from parts taken all over the place, and it might not suit you. I tend to like the my country* as far as the good bits go and that's where it stops. The other parts can be improved and the country gets judged based on how they are trying to change them.

* For the record I'm English by birth and have lived in the USA for 35 years. I'm currently applying for US citizenship which will give me dual citizenship. How could I handle that if I were a patriot?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The definition of a Patriot is one who tries to limit the power and correct the errors of Gov't in quest for better union.

For me it's just to sheer feeling of being proud in one's country voluntarily out of one's desire to express their patriotic joy.

That can only come from good governance at the offset.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Patriotic--love of the fatherland. Whether it is love of the Fatherland or love of the Motherland, there is going to be blood in the soil. I would say it is best to acknowledge this, and learn from it.

I do love England, warts and all. The other day though, I read an article by the journalist Simon Price, in which he referred to the Union Flag as the Butcher’s Apron. Which I thought was spot on, tbf. A lot of blood has been shed beneath that flag.

I could say that’s not the bit I love, but how to really separate rum, slavery opium and conquest, from cricket, afternoon tea, Monty Python and the Beatles? Dunno.

 

[anna.]

Yes, but the question is what do people mean when they say "American exceptionalism"? That would suggest your second definition is probably more accurate. People don't mean just "rare" as in a black sheep in a field of white sheep. I found a wiki page that contains this.

But you don't know that people don't mean just rare. Some, but it's not a monolithic idea. I think people mean a range of things, and the idea that the founding of our country was unique in history can weigh in equally or heavier than that it is 'superior' to all other countries - depending on who you talk to. Whether religion ties into it can be significant, and those who are or lean towards Christian nationalism are, in my opinion, more likely to talk about superiority and do it with belligerence.

There's lots more, it's worth a read. American exceptionalism - Wikipedia

I think i can sum up what I don't like about it is the idea (expressed by some, often politicians) that the USA is the best country in the world and needs no improvement. I think we agree on that, do we not?

That's a good link. You'll notice in the first sentence the words distinctive, unique, exemplary. Not superior, or not needing any improvement.

And yes, we agree that we don't see the US as needing no improvement. However - since it's my country, I still think it's the best country in the world.

As I see it, it's a mixture. It has been very slow to adopt things like universal voting, truly freeing black people and "socialistic" things like universal health care. On the other hand, it has done so, largely. Compared to places like North Korea, it's close to heaven. Compared to many European nations, it's OK, but needs improvement.

Fair enough. The history of the US is filled with injustice, but I do believe that over time, efforts have been made to right wrongs although some can never be righted completely, and in some ways we risk sliding backward. But the guiding principles of the Constitution are still there, and still worth striving towards.

War like situations will do that. They don't tend to last past the end of the war, unfortunately. Britain in WW2 was very united, but we kicked out Churchill's Conservative party at the next election and the Labour party instituted all kinds of socialist stuff.

So do natural disasters. Hurricanes, tornados, floods, fires. People helping people, regardless of what they might argue over in safer times. These are some of the times I'm proudest of the ability of my fellow citizens to do remarkable things at personal cost against great odds.

Addressing "loving the people", that's admirable, certainly. But why does it stop at the border, and if it doesn't, why call it "patriotism"?

My point was you can't just love the land because it's yours. (Well, I do think some people love land more than humans, but that's complicated.)
I mean not as empire or conquest.

Understood. I could put together a "perfect" (for me) country from parts taken all over the place, and it might not suit you. I tend to like the my country* as far as the good bits go and that's where it stops. The other parts can be improved and the country gets judged based on how they are trying to change them.

* For the record I'm English by birth and have lived in the USA for 35 years. I'm currently applying for US citizenship which will give me dual citizenship. How could I handle that if I were a patriot?

I'd say Welcome future fellow citizen! And then I'd expect you to take a certain pride in your adopted country.