I realize that we have members from all around the world, and I hope that you all have guaranteed freedoms. We seem to have quite a bit of freedom of expression here at these forums. I'm from the U.S., and today is our Independence Day, so I was just thinking a little bit about what that means.

I don't really want this to turn into some kind of name-calling, holier-than-thou thing, but what do you think the responsibilities of a free citizen should be? This may be placed in any context that you like.

For example, can a free citizen "hide" from responsibilities that his society and government say are required? Should that be included in citizens' "freedom" or is that freedom to be paid for through some duties/ requirements, as in keeping with all the sacrifices given by current and past generations?

It seems to me that patriotism may be expressed in many different ways. Some people use "patriotism" as a catch-phrase to assail others' beliefs or somehow feel superior. While others may use it honestly to illicit the best from otherwise ambivalent individuals. I'm going to cut this off, so anyone who cares may express their thoughts, hopefully without causing a riot.

But I will finish by saying that I believe patriotism to be a very real thing, but when huge masses use it to rail against specific topics or peoples, it can turn into some kind of mass hysteria which was seen in 1930s Europe or many present-day situations. On the other hand, a group of individuals, each inspired with their own honest, individual form of patriotism could accomplish major good for all humanity, at least if they didn't kill each other first.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

I believe it is a citizen's DUTY to wake up in the morning and thank God and his fabulous nation and its virtuous president as he salutes his national flag after he has raised it in his front lawn. He must then gather his family and sing loud and proud the beautiful national anthem. He must only buy products owned and manufactured in his own country and show off his pride by painting his car and wearing clothes only of his national colours. A man must be willing to lay down his life for his country no matter what their country is doing and must NEVER lose faith in his country. If a man loses faith in his nation, he becomes nothing.

Hehe, Im just taking the piss. I find patriotism to be extremely frivolous mostly because I come from Australia and it is something of a national duty here to mock the government and our own history as much as possible (face it, the POMs dumped a bunch of convicts here who would later try and commit genocide on the natives then have ancestors who would totally deny it - Australia's 200 year history in a nutshell). I guess thats our own form of patriotism. Im proud to be from Australia, but all that translates into is fiercely defending Australian beers in internet chatrooms, amusing people with racist jokes and watching sport.


On a slightly more serious note, I think a citizen's only duty to his country should be to function harmoniously in society. That means basically obeying the law and raising kids who will do the same, should you choose to have kids. I couldnt give a stuff about things like national pride (with the exception of Rememberance and ANZAC day; Australia's equivalents of Veteran's Day) because I think if you are totally free you shouldnt have to be forced to think about things like that. If you want to sing the national anthem every morning, then do it, but it shouldnt be a requirement or anything like that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Member 27,

As a citizen of the United States, I can speak only on behalf of my own country, mark.

I would honestly like to say that the greatest responsibility of a free citizen is to be an informed individual providing their consent to be governed through all the myriad means at their disposal from the ballot box, to the editorial page of their local paper, to the bully pulpit.

What I observe, however, are good and intelligent people who sit on the sidelines. I see good and intelligent people overwhelmed by the fear and contradiction that defines current American political discourse. Ours was never intended to be a strictly two party system, but so long as both parties acknowledged a "loyal opposition," I believe we could still accomplish great things. To assume the role of the loyal opposition today, however, is to leave one's self open to accusations of "hating America" and there can be little that is great in such an environment.

Now Playing: "Boogie Stop Shuffle" Charles Mingus The Complete 1959 Columbia Sessions (Columbia)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Member 27:
On a slightly more serious note, I think a citizen's only duty to his country should be to function harmoniously in society. That means basically obeying the law and raising kids who will do the same, should you choose to have kids.

---

While there is a certain value to what you're recommending here, 27, I always worry when I hear people espousing blind obedience. I don't think that's what you're doing, but it could be construed that way. Some of the great patriots and heroes the world over were civil disobedients. While there is a virtue in being able to "fit in" to society, there's also something to be said to being able to think for yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by philosopherEric:

While there is a certain value to what you're recommending here, 27, I always worry when I hear people espousing blind obedience. I don't think that's what you're doing, but it could be construed that way. Some of the great patriots and heroes the world over were civil disobedients. While there is a virtue in being able to "fit in" to society, there's also something to be said to being able to think for yourself.

---

I see what you mean, but I meant that to be a good citizen you shouldnt go around commiting mass rape or anything like that.

Yesterday had the unenviable distinction of the day when our casualty in Iraq surpassed 1000. God knows how many wounded. And this is not to mention the people we’ve claimed to have liberated, their dead, their wounded, their life disrupted, and all the suffering and carnage yet to come.

If George Bush had said to the American people before the election, “I will have at least a thousand or our military killed in a foreign place, put the American economy back to the tune of 200 billion annually, wipe out the foreign policy gains we’ve accomplished in the entire post WWII era, and destroy America's reputation in much of the world,” he would never have been permitted to leave Crawford.

These are the ways in which we are better off than 4 years ago.

We have ignored John Adam’s admonition to “not seek out monsters to destroy” in foreign lands. In the process, we have diminished our own civil liberties and live in a political atmosphere of fear and Owellian doublespeak. We call occupation liberation. War is peace. Fear is security.

The citizens of Rome didn’t wake up one morning and say, “Let's live in a dictatorship.” But they ended up in one.

I doubt that any of us are old enough to know the McCarthy era, but I think we know now. This is what Goya meant when he said, "the sleep of reason breeds monsters."

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:
Yesterday had the unenviable distinction of the day when our casualty in Iraq surpassed 1000. God knows how many wounded. And this is not to mention the people we’ve claimed to have liberated, their dead, their wounded, their life disrupted, and all the suffering and carnage yet to come.

---

In a single battle, from Dec. 16, 1944 to Jan 25, 1945 (40 days... know the battle I'm talking about?) the U.S. lost 475 troops PER DAY and 19,000 killed, total. So excuse me if I'm not shocked by the 1,000 figure you just cited. Excuse me also for not shedding too many tears for those blowing themselves up in car bombs & firing at coalition soldiers from Mosques in furtherance of the old ideas of tyranny. As far as those innocents killed on both sides of the butcher's bill, check your own conscience before blaming this country.

SparkleMotion, I know what you're talking about, and the fact that you brought it up reinforces that WAR IS HELL. The Battle of the Bulge was very necessary, but at what price! People watch "Saving Private Ryan" and think that D-Day was the turning point, and of course, it was, but there were so many others. An enormous number of people were killed after June 6, 1944, on both sides, but the innocent "bad guys" seemed to really have to take it, between the fire-bombings of Germany and the nuclear destruction of Japan. I realize that I don't harbor any horrible thoughts about my country back then. I wasn't born until 1956.

Your comments are very appreciated because I was trying to come up with a way to discuss "patriotism" outside of partisanship, but maybe I was just baiting (I tried not to.)

The one thing I will add, is that I, as you, mourn the loss of a single life, especially if it is done for "the wrong reasons." Maybe that makes sense or not. I believe that there are many causes which need life-and-death choices in our present world, but nothing to compare with WW II. I wouldn't, if possible, allow my child to fight for something that wasn't completely necessary to the well-being of my country. If I were to allow that, then I fear that all of America's children would be fighting and dying for centuries to come, and of course, we would have no idea that it was for any purpose, since we'd all be dead.

PS- SparkleMotion, do you live in Spain? My wife lived there and went to college about 25 years ago at UGranada, so she really cares. Also, SM, try to post here more often. I enjoy it. Best to you and yours.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

In a single battle, from approximately July 1, 1916 to approximately November 18, 1916 (know the battle I'm talking about?) British troops suffered more than 19,000 casualties on the first day of battle alone, eventually suffering around 420,000 casualities in all.

The macabre arithmetic of judging the relative value of human lives by the scale of their endeavor is a vulgar argument in the best of times, but positively obscene when applied to the troops who fell at the Battle of the Bulge, Gettysburg, Grenada, Fallujah, or any battle.

LT, I agree with you that the Battle of the Somme and almost every battle is too obscene. That battle didn't even involve Americans unless they enlisted in the British or German forces. I realize that war has always been with the human race, but maybe we can evolve into something better that can resolve their differences without blowing up everyone's
beloved babies. God help us all.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

I agree with the last several posts. Any kind of death is bad, of course. I completely agree. I just get sick of the media keeping count every night for some political reason. 10 dead are bad. 100 dead are bad. So are 1,000. And 100,000. The New York Times predicted 20,000 dead in the potential "Battle of Baghdad" before the Iraq "War." If a psychic had told the NY Times that after about a year and a half, there would only be 1000 deaths total (including the major fighting and the insurgency), they would be jumping for joy -- assuming ANY death is acceptable, which, of course, it is not. But for the NY Times to now revise their way of thinking and claim that 1,000 is MANY more than anybody could have predicted is disingenuous.

On another note, I'm sickened that the UN hasn't sent troops into the Sudan to stop the Muslim genocide of Christian Blacks in the south. The US & England basciallly have NO more troops to spare as a result of the Iraq War, Afghanistan, and patrolling the DMZ in Korea, so I'd like to see some Russians, French, and German troops high-tailing it down to the Sudan to prevent the most profound human carnage of our time. Every time I see coverage of the Iraq prison scandal on page 1 of the NY Times (I've heard it's been there 48 times over the last 2 months), and you have to flip to page 20 to get ANY word about the Sudan, I have to wonder whose lives are more important to world leaders? I guess poor Africans don't count quite as much...

OK, Rant over... respond if you like...

And no, mark f, not Spain, Alabama...

SparkleMotion wrote:

“In a single battle, from Dec. 16, 1944 to Jan 25, 1945 (40 days... know the battle I'm talking about?) the U.S. lost 475 troops PER DAY and 19,000 killed, total. So excuse me if I'm not shocked by the 1,000 figure you just cited.”

Who said anything about being shocked, SparkleMotion? I’m not shocked, whatever gave you that idea? Just dismayed and sad – over the sheer waste, our lives wasted, our resources spent badly, our reputation damaged – due to sheer arrogance and stupidity. But not shocked.

SparkleMotion wrote:

“Excuse me also for not shedding too many tears for those blowing themselves up in car bombs & firing at coalition soldiers from Mosques in furtherance of the old ideas of tyranny.”

So, let me get what you’re sayin’: ”Bad guys”- who cowardly strap explosives to their bodies, or has the unmitigated gall to launch RPGs at our brave, heroic, freedom loving boys - must be minions and toadies of tyranny and religious nut-cases? Right? Whereas, you’re sayin’, we just wanna “shock and awe” those benighted, politically backwards, culturally inadequate, and people who are “less” than us, who valued life “less” than we do, into submission, even if it kills ‘em. Am I right, SparkleMotion?

Oh, yes, let’s not forget, let them die there so that we don’t die here.

SparkleMotion wrote:

“As far as those innocents killed on both sides of the butcher's bill, check your own conscience before blaming this country.”

I suppose with attitudes like these, and the laser-guided ordnance and Apache gunships to enforce our will wherever we want to, are the reasons why these ungrateful people welcome us with flowers and won’t think of flying fuel heavy aircrafts into our tall skyscrapers.

My conscience? Blame this country? What Never Neverland are you in? Remember, we “shocked and awed” them into submission. We invade them. We occupied them. And we still do, to the tune of an occupation force of plus 140,000 strong. Maybe we could have maybe a half million Russian troops station in South L.A. so we in Santa Monica can just feel more secure.

As for “disingenuous,” what’s disingenuous is blaming the New York Times for our troubles rather than acknowledge a “botched” foreign policy that lied and deceived its own people, destroy our credibility abroad, and weaken us militarily, economically, and morally.

Your line of reasoning is as bankrupt as the laundry list of justifications this administration has offered for why we went there in the first place. Who else should we blame?

I think it was Samuel Johnson who said it best, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

Bush, the guy we elected to do a job, who has a fiduciary responsibility here, he lied to us, and you want to say, ”Okay” and bend over?

By the way, SparkleMotion, you have a simple, economical solution, end your subscription.

And do save a few tears for those sub-Saharan Africans, and join Doctors Without Boarders while you’re at it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wong828,

Wong,

I'm just too tired to have a full debate with you over this. It wasn't actually meant to be a political debate, as I don't care to discuss the relative merits of Bush/Kerry, etc. Simply, I'll add that reasonable minds can disagree over whether the US should have gone into Iraq. The United States was much more divided on whether the US should join WWII, and Hitler would seem to have been much more of a clear & present danger to the world. Lincoln was one of the all-time most unpopular presidents during his term. Should the coalition have gone into Iraq? It's up to you to decide, and history, not you or I or the multitude of cable TV pundits will determine. Just live the good life, live by example, and be honest with yourself.

Getting back to the topic of Patriotism. Do you love your particular country and want only the best for it? If so, then the decisions you make on its behalf in the voting booth and by voicing your opinion will be, by definition, good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:
I think it was Samuel Johnson who said it best, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

---

Yes, Johnson did say it, but not knowing much about Johnson, or Boswell, for that matter, I would have never known, unless I'd heard it in "Paths of Glory." My question is: does that inherently mean that all "patriots" are "scoundrels" because logically, I don't see how it does.

My main concern in responding is that we can discuss "patriotism" without getting so black-and-white about it, especially if things seem to be getting too personal. It's this "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude that causes all wars and terrorist acts in the first place. Debate: good; war: bad. (I realize that sometimes you're forced to defend yourself. Just don't go looking for unnecessary wars, whether nationally or personally.) Shut up, mark.

SparkleMotion wrote:

"Just live the good life, live by example, and be honest with yourself."

Cool.

I think ultimately the US would've entered WWII even without Pearl Harbor, because Britain would've fallen or capitulated at some point. There is recent evidence that FDR may have had foreknowledge of the Japanese intent to attack, but refrain from action because he felt the American public needed to be galvanized, and was willing to pay the price.

Island hopping on the way to Japan was very costly, and even so, we resorted to the use of nuclear weapons - because we didn't want to pay that price. Without Britain as a staging point, retaking Europe would've been horrific.

Don't mistake me for a pacifist. There are situations where it is right to say, "My country right or wrong." There are situations where you will not have a moral "right" choice, where every choice is dire, and what is available to you is the case of the "lesser" evil.

But we should be clear about it, understand the choice to be what it is. When we fire bombed Dresden and the German industrial heartland, the young Curtis LaMay was purported to have said to Dulles or Atkinson, "If we loose this war, we'll be tried as war criminals." Instead, we tried the Japanese emperor for acts against humanity.

mark f, the Johnson quote is usually applied to people or political leaders who engage in self-serving hypocrisy or sanctimony to advance their case. As I said elsewhere, effective leaders have appealed to the best of the human makeup to mobilize them to do difficult things and sacrifice themselves and that which is dear. Hitler and Lincoln did it, just as Churchill and Bush.

The catch is that in Hitler and Bush's case, they (we) were the belligerents. Hitler, to protect Germans throughout continental Europe - and to create a Third Reich, where the Aryan people can realize their anointed and proper destiny as the supreme race.

And we? George said we needed to protect freedom. I guess if we didn't have 36,000 American boys in the Korean DMZ who would've been vaporized in the first five seconds of a nuclear detonation, we would've protected freedom there too, and not some piece of bad real estate in the Middle East.

To say that we invaded and occupied Iraq for freedom, as Bush did, is sanctimony. To say that we were attacked because we love freedom is sheer sanctimonious self-congratulation. To say that democracies don't start war, as Bush did, is hypocrisy. The rationales for this war were lies, and have been proven to be lies.

In a democracy, those who rules do so with the consent of the people. The drafters of the Constitution and the Bills of Rights were canny and realistic enough about human nature and its flaws to create institutions that prevent power from being invested in one person or one group, because they knew, and their experience have shown them, that that leads to tyranny.

Patriotism is the love of country. In a democracy, because we are a free people, we should not continence lies or a regime of lies, or any attempt to truncate free debate or due process. In a democracy, free discourse is a fundamental value before any other, because without it, democracy itself is undermined.

Here and now, we are engaging in the most patriotic thing we can do in any democracy, which is to create consent freely. (Unfortunately and tragically - even more so than our boys and girls in Iraq, because what are they defending there except a failed foreign policy predicated on lies.)

We are blessed in America because none of us need to strap explosives to our bodies to achieve our political ends, we simply have to wait a few months, and if we believed we have scoundrels driving the bus, we'll send them back to private life.

quote:

---

My question is: does that inherently mean that all "patriots" are "scoundrels" because logically, I don't see how it does.

---

No I don't think it does, either. I think the point of the quote, is that when all else fails, a scoundrel will draw on patriotism to get his way, see George Bush and his hawks, or to be even more extreme, Hitler.

I don't see why there's anything wrong with loving your country. Hopefully every country should strive to be a place where people who live there DO love it, because it's a good place to live.

I don't want to get too deep into this discussion, because it usually just depresses me, but I will say that my problem with patriotism is that it often seems to me to develop into xenophobia as well. Loving your country doesn't mean you have to hate others, or even to such pride of place that you decide your country is "better" than others. Ideally, patriotism should be about being proud of your country but also accepting that others may be just as good. In my mind it often turns into an elevated form of school and team spirit.

It makes me sick to go to sports events and see team pride turn into hostility against other teams or schools or what have you. I've seen people get into near fist fights just because they are rooting for two different teams. And it only gets worse when you elevate it to the level of nationalism. Patriotism shouldn't be a selfish, exclusive or hostile thing. It should allow for acceptance and generosity and working with others as well.

Okay, that's all. As mark would say, shut up, KT.

I found this buried on the last page of the forums, and I was wondering is it still relevant? Have things changed much since 2004? Does anybody else here want to chime in or take the topic to another dimension? (In an even-handed manner, of course )

Oh, it's very relevant. Because some people have a preconceived notion that if you blindly and willingly submit yourself to the government, then you're being "patriotic". My opinion is that if you do that you are just being an idiot. Patriots should do what's best for their country, not what's best for their government. In fact, I think what's best for this country is a new government .