patriotism?

[timtofly]

There isn't much tolerance at all in many aspects of Judaism. Tolerance clearly predates the "Biblical (Judeo-Christian) tradition". Some early examples of toleration were actually accorded to the Jews by other societies.

There isn't a single moral tenet of any modern country which owes its roots to the Bible.

That really has nothing to do with it. Patriots are more than willing to criticize their own governments and consider it a positive thing to do so, while nationalists deplore any criticism and think their country is superior to al others. The two are fundamentally different concepts but have enough in common so they are frequently confused.

Wouldn't that just prove my point? Patriotism changes with ideology. Nationalism is deeper rooted to the nation itself.

well, that's because the bible has it's roots in various myths, philosophical concepts and thoughts that naturally predate it.

to think that the bible suddenly was there at some point in history without having been influenced by what was before is rather ridiculous.

From what roots did the law come from? Since most of it is written down history, comparing it to other history is what we do, not how one lives in the moment.

 

[Ergo Sum]

nitpicking

Perhaps I didn't bring this out well enough, the points of my post were that: 1. With the assumption that 'empirically observable' proof of family or nation means highly patterned, visible action across social strata, 2. Interaction within families is a highly patterned activity BASED on their kinship ties. Regardless of various divergences - quarrels, 'failures' of parenting, socioeconomic circumstances, etc. - these social actions can be observed throughout much of society, with the same pattern, i.e. kinship and families. And 3. Nation is a very loose predictor for social/societal interactions. Most of the interactions (financial, friendly) with wider society can and often are based on criteria other than 'nation.' Hence, the family is far more empirically observable than the nation. And I would agree with others that the nation is, in fact, ideological, more likely to be seen based on faith than on reason.

 

[holy king]

From what roots did the law come from?

ours? roman law, mainly, which goes back to the twelve tables.

why do you ask?

 

[Formaldehyde]

well, that's because the bible has it's roots in various myths, philosophical concepts and thoughts that naturally predate it.

to think that the bible suddenly was there at some point in history without having been influenced by what was before is rather ridiculous.

Exactly. I can't think of a single aspect of the Bible which is totally unique with the exception of some of the specific details of some "miracles". It is a synthesis of different ideologies.

Wouldn't that just prove my point? Patriotism changes with ideology. Nationalism is deeper rooted to the nation itself.

It isn't patriotism that changes. It is nationalism which becomes far more pervasive in some individuals than that of patriotism.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's fun watching people argue about how to misuse words.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is likely far more a difference of what you were taught in college, at least it is with me. Did my professors "misuse" the terms? Perhaps according to some who have their own "misuse" of the same words.

Who hijacked our country: Patriotism vs. Nationalism

Here is an excellent Newsweek column on the differences between patriotism and nationalism. The article has a lot of quotes from George Orwell’s “Notes on Nationalism,” written in 1945. Orwell’s writing has as much meaning today as it did in the 1940s.

Too many people — in every country — think nationalism and patriotism are the same thing. They’re not; they’re completely different.

Orwell defined patriotism as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people.” Can’t argue with that.

The subtitle of this article is “The greatness of the United States is unique—and not a model to be exported by narrow-minded nationalists.”

According to Orwell, nationalism is the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or an idea, and “placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”] In other words nationalism doesn’t have to be based on a country. This same fanaticism can be applied to any “ism”: Communism, Neo-Conservatism, Fundamentalism (of any religion), you name it. Whether it’s based on a country or an “ism,” nationalism always has that combination of blind zeal and indifference to reality.

In nationalism, thoughts “always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. … Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception.” And this self-deception leads to disastrous miscalculations based on wishful thinking rather than facts. Orwell says:

“Political and military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.” Hey, whatever happened to all the flowers and ice cream that grateful Iraqis were supposed to showering our troops with?

Orwell really has our current foreign policy dialed with this quote:

“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

Sound familiar?

I guess Orwell was also "misusing" the terms...

 

[timtofly]

It's fun watching people argue about how to misuse words.

It must be, or it would not happen.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is likely far more a difference of what you were taught in college, at least it is with me. Did my professors "misuse" the terms? Perhaps according to some who have their own "misuse" of the same words.

No, it's use plain old wrong. When a word is defined in such a fashion as to be incoherent with how the word is actually used, then we can only conclude that the definition is incorrect. "Blue" cannot be defined as referring to a shade of orange, for example.

I guess Orwell was also "misusing" the terms...

Probably; he did that a lot. Good journalist, but crap political theorist.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You must be very selective in regard to whom is a "crap political theorist":

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

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Howard Zinn

It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me. Ho Chi Minh

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. Mark Twain

 

[Flying Pig]

Mark Twain's I like, Ho Chi Minh's is immune to comment, but the other two I do not like very much at all.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Charles de Gaulle was a conservative bourgeois oppressor.
Howard Zinn is a member of American liberal-bourgeoisie which will betray the working class in the critical moment.
Ho Chi Minh was an authoritarian state capitalist oppressor.
Mark Twain's writings reveal the ideology of petty-bourgeois radicalism.

PWN.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Is rhetoric reminiscent of the 60s and the Symbionese Liberation Army really coming back into vogue?

 

[Traitorfish]

You must be very selective in regard to whom is a "crap political theorist":

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

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Howard Zinn

It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me. Ho Chi Minh

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. Mark Twain

Only one of those was a political theorist, and he was indeed a crap one.

 

[Quackers]

Is it just me, or is the use of the word "neo-conservative" in Forma's article, have some...shall we say..unfair company in "Communism" and "fundamentalism" ?

 

[emzie]

I think you should feel some sort of pride or loyalty to your community, whatever level you define that as. If you don't, you should move somewhere you will or engage political processes to change your community for the better.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Is it just me, or is the use of the word "neo-conservative" in Forma's article, have some...shall we say..unfair company in "Communism" and "fundamentalism" ?

Aren't they all deeply rooted in nationalism in many situations?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Neo-Conservatism is most definitely NOT deeply rooted in Nationalism.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Right...

Neoconservative Moral Nationalism in U.S. Foreign Policy

Neoconservatives find their inspiration in a belief in the greatness of the American nation, which justifies its preeminent rank in the global hierarchy, defined in terms of both military and moral power. Neoconservatism is not a nostalgic patriotism. Irving Kristol, the intellectual father of modern neoconservatism, writes that ‘‘neoconservatism is not merely patriotic—that goes without saying—but also nationalist. Patriotism springs from a love of the nation’s past; nationalism arises out of hope for the nation’s future, distinctive greatness.’’ Nationalism provides the greater purpose needed to mobilize societal virtue and prevent the slide into decadence. Kristol and Kagan argue that such a sense of commitment is necessary even to preserve basic vital interests. This is why the movement so embraced Ronald Reagan. The President vanquished the Vietnam syndrome that had sapped America’s self-confidence and crippled the administration of Jimmy Carter in its dealings with Iran and the Soviet Union. In doing so, Reagan drew a strict moral line that neoconservatives respect between virtuous American democracy and an evil totalitarian empire....

Neoconservatism is not a nationalism of the soil as is the case with American isolationism or other nationalisms across the globe. Rather, it is based on the superiority of American ideals and values, a universal nationalism. As a result, even more than others, American nationalism has a strong moral component that distinguishes it sharply from the amorality of realism. Realism is simply pragmatic, while neoconservatism puts great stress on the importance of American ideas and the strength it derives from them. Neoconservatives take what might be considered a constructivist approach to world politics that is sharply distinguished from the realists’ austere materialism. Hence, they are highly engaged in the media battle over the course of American foreign policy.45 The belief in the superiority and universality of American national values leads them to a vigorous promotion, at least rhetorically, of American institutions and ideals, most notably democracy. However, they do so in a unilateral way, in keeping with their nationalism....

The consequence of this moral self-confidence is a tendency to perceive the world as a struggle for power between good and evil. This was the sustaining force of the neoconservative nationalists during the Cold War, who saw the ongoing competition with the Soviet Union as more than just a realist struggle for power or survival. It was a moral crusade as well The sense of moral superiority shared by neoconservatives is most clearly seen in their repeated insistence that there is no distinction between the national interest and that of the international community.

Neo-conservatism is the best example of excess nationalism since WWII.

 

[Berzerker]

I think you missed the difference between Judaism and Christianity, but so goes it...

Which would be?

Tolerance?

Therein lies the problem, by attaching Jesus to the Judaism, Christians "miss" the difference between the two. Tolerance might be a Christian value, but it aint a Judeo-Christian value. The 1st Amendment is about tolerance, the 1st Commandment is not...

Who says that you need? We were talking about the origins of tolerance, however.

User The_Tyrant wrote that tolerance is a value that is rooted from Biblical (Judeo-Christian) tradition. He is right.

The origin of tolerance predates the Bible, either you believe in live and let live or you dont.

There isn't a single moral tenet of any modern country which owes its roots to the Bible.

An eye for an eye?

Patriots are more than willing to criticize their own governments and consider it a positive thing to do so, while nationalists deplore any criticism and think their country is superior to al others. The two are fundamentally different concepts but have enough in common so they are frequently confused.

Patriots are nationalists when they're in power and they're patriots again when they lose power.

Well, now you mention it, I was reading the other day that the reason that religion and medicine were so heavily bound together in Ancient Greece - 'healing' often meant going to a sanctuary sacred to Asklepios for several days, being involved in various rites and possibly having something resembling medicine administered as well - was that they realised that most of the diseases which were serious enough to merit that sort of bother to get rid of them but possible to cure were chiefly psychosomatic: the patient, in these cases, could either 'will himself better' or he had a disease which meant he would die anyway. More gods would have quite directly influenced the mortality rate.

Fascinating [/Spock]

 

[Formaldehyde]

An eye for an eye?

Ever heard of Hammurabi?

Patriots are nationalists when they're in power and they're patriots again when they lose power.

I thought we dismissed that notion pages ago. This isn't a partisan attack. It is a fundamental difference between the two words, at least how they are used in a modern context by most scholars.