When I turned 60 I made an entry to my blog where, amongst other self criticisms, I described myself as a failed patriot.

So what must a country have to inspire patriotism?

I know people who are several generations from their country of origin who still describe them selves as being from that country.

At Australia's last soccer World Cup a group of young men who had been raised at considerable cost in that countries youth sporting system declared them selves to be Croats, even though none had been born there, and left to play for Croatia.

What is a country but a motley collection of rocks and trees? What makes it worth dying for? Is it all political bullshit instituted by men with no personal or political beliefs other than money and totalitarianism to keep the sheep in line?

Yes a country is a motley collection of rocks and dirt....but it is also home to it's inhabitants that choose to call it thus....ie, they feel they belong, and it belongs to them.

Good thread Sceadugenga!

Patriotism is a strange thing.

I was building a tourist attraction with a partner in Edmonton/Alberta, Canada, more than 20 years ago, and one evening, late at night I told my partner my best buddy once moved to Canada, and I never spoke nor saw him ever again.

I got a brainwave, took the phone and called the surname in the local phone book but with a slightly different first name: Robert instead the "Robbie" I knew.

After he left his country of birth we didn't see each other for 29 years...until that date and of course we were very excited when we met.

During one of our meetings (he even helped us building the business) he said: this country (Canada) has been good to be; this is my homeland and I love it. Wife, 2 sons and he was happy.

I felt touched about his love for his (new) homeland but he didn't feel any patriotism whatsoever (anymore) towards his old country of birth and I understood.

The vast majority of his existing years was already in Canada rather than his country of birth.

No patriotism here.

LaoPo

Human beings are tribal. Dogs are pack animals. It's natural.

I've heard it said that being part of a war defending your country can cement unbreakable roots but I know so many veterans living in foreign parts it makes me wonder.

War is one of the few things in life I've missed, my opportunity came in the form of a lottery which I lost/won so I declined the offer to volunteer. Not so much out of anti-war sentiment as having what I thought were better things to do at the time.

I grew up in a country that was full of recent immigrants, including my mother and father, neither of whom seemed too attached to the bombed out bankrupt country that they'd left.

Would I want to help defend Australia now? (Assuming that geriatric former alcoholics were required to answer the call).

Don't know. Probably, but for all the wrong reasons.

Patriotism = Nationalism, which was once National Socialism, the deadliest scourge of the 20th century. German and Italian perversions of nationalism motivated millions of 'Christians' to murder millions of Russians, Jews, Poles, etc., who were murdered by their fellow believers. For 1,600 years, including wars against non-believers; yet their 99-star general had commanded them to preach the Gospel of His Peace to unbelievers, and live at peace with ALL MEN.

Of course, most of you guys no longer pretend to be believers in any peaceful faith. Maybe your 'holiest faith' is in your country.

It's a good question. Orwell said it is "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.” I think that's a pretty good definition and is distinguishes it from nationalism and certainly jingoism.

In my own mind, patriotism is like payment on a debt owed for gifts received. from a benevolent and just nation. Sometimes the debt carries for generations and sometimes the creditor loses their fiduciary credibility to an extent you may feel your debt has been repayed in full and zero balance remains.

As an aside, I don't really think there's such a thing as national sovereignty in any real sense anymore. Governments are mush more related to each other than the people they are elected to serve. Like you, I'd probably answer the call, but only if it came from what I once considered the nation(an assortment of ideals worth defending), certainly not from the government.

Patriotism = Nationalism, which was once National Socialism, the deadliest scourge of the 20th century. German and Italian perversions of nationalism motivated millions of 'Christians' to murder millions of Russians, Jews, Poles, etc., who were murdered by their fellow believers. For 1,600 years, including wars against non-believers; yet their 99-star general had commanded them to preach the Gospel of His Peace to unbelievers, and live at peace with ALL MEN.

Of course, most of you guys no longer pretend to be believers in any peaceful faith. Maybe your 'holiest faith' is in your country.

The only reason you can even practice what you believe is because other men at some time fought.

Of course, most of you guys no longer pretend to be believers in any peaceful faith. Maybe your 'holiest faith' is in your country.

The only reason you can even practice what you believe is because other men at some time fought.

I never asked them to protect me. They could have created the USA and preserved it peacefully.

Of course, most of you guys no longer pretend to be believers in any peaceful faith. Maybe your 'holiest faith' is in your country.

The only reason you can even practice what you believe is because other men at some time fought.

I never asked them to protect me. They could have created the USA and preserved it peacefully.

I never said anything about the USA. It's happened throughout history.

Of course, most of you guys no longer pretend to be believers in any peaceful faith. Maybe your 'holiest faith' is in your country.

The only reason you can even practice what you believe is because other men at some time fought.

I never asked them to protect me. They could have created the USA and preserved it peacefully.

I never said anything about the USA. It's happened throughout history.

My remark was aimed at the country I know best. I suspect that if Western Christians (for example) had remained pacifists or a tenth as belligerent as the patriotic powers trained the people to be, history would have been very different. No Army in Pennsylvavia for its first 70 years of pacifist rule. Costa Rica, 60 years since their president dismantled the army, still going better than their neighbors. We know that war doesn't really end war.

My remark was aimed at the country I know best. I suspect that if Western Christians (for example) had remained pacifists or a tenth as belligerent as the patriotic powers trained the people to be, history would have been very different. No Army in Pennsylvavia for its first 70 years of pacifist rule. Costa Rica, 60 years since their president dismantled the army, still going better than their neighbors. We know that war doesn't really end war.

You keep bringing up Pennsylvania. I checked. In a nutshell, the King granted the land to William Penn (because he owned Penn's military father money of all things). How did the King get the land? Killing Indians of course. Penn decided to buy most of the land from the Indians (I'm sure they felt they had a real choice in the matter). Most, but not all. Good thing for Penn that other men were willing to fight, kill and die so he could have Pennsylvania.

Read for yourself: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/wu01/vc/visit.../pa_history.htm

I know I'm arguing with you but I've nothing really against peace-lovers like yourself - except when they deny the realities of the world we live in and also deny the assistance they have received throughout history by people who weren't so peaceful. They like to think that their "love" and it alone did it all.

My remark was aimed at the country I know best. I suspect that if Western Christians (for example) had remained pacifists or a tenth as belligerent as the patriotic powers trained the people to be, history would have been very different. No Army in Pennsylvavia for its first 70 years of pacifist rule. Costa Rica, 60 years since their president dismantled the army, still going better than their neighbors. We know that war doesn't really end war.

You keep bringing up Pennsylvania. I checked. In a nutshell, the King granted the land to William Penn (because he owned Penn's military father money of all things). How did the King get the land? Killing Indians of course. Penn decided to buy most of the land from the Indians (I'm sure they felt they had a real choice in the matter). Most, but not all. Good thing for Penn that other men were willing to fight, kill and die so he could have Pennsylvania.

Read for yourself: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/wu01/vc/visit.../pa_history.htm

I know I'm arguing with you but I've nothing really against peace-lovers like yourself - except when they deny the realities of the world we live in and also deny the assistance they have received throughout history by people who weren't so peaceful. They like to think that their "love" and it alone did it all.

So exterminating natives was a patriotic act? No.

The French and Indian War is the common U.S. name for the war between Great Britain and France in North America from 1754–1763 - by which time the pacifists had lost control of the colony. The colony was not conquered violently like the others were.

My remark was aimed at the country I know best. I suspect that if Western Christians (for example) had remained pacifists or a tenth as belligerent as the patriotic powers trained the people to be, history would have been very different. No Army in Pennsylvavia for its first 70 years of pacifist rule. Costa Rica, 60 years since their president dismantled the army, still going better than their neighbors. We know that war doesn't really end war.

You keep bringing up Pennsylvania. I checked. In a nutshell, the King granted the land to William Penn (because he owned Penn's military father money of all things). How did the King get the land? Killing Indians of course. Penn decided to buy most of the land from the Indians (I'm sure they felt they had a real choice in the matter). Most, but not all. Good thing for Penn that other men were willing to fight, kill and die so he could have Pennsylvania.

Read for yourself: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/wu01/vc/visit.../pa_history.htm

I know I'm arguing with you but I've nothing really against peace-lovers like yourself - except when they deny the realities of the world we live in and also deny the assistance they have received throughout history by people who weren't so peaceful. They like to think that their "love" and it alone did it all.

So exterminating natives was a patriotic act? No.

The French and Indian War is the common U.S. name for the war between Great Britain and France in North America from 1754–1763 - by which time the pacifists had lost control of the colony. The colony was not conquered violently like the others were.

Still, without violence, it wouldn't have been able to exist.

In the US a Patriot was once those who fought for liberty & justice for all. He or she so loves the ideals of America that they will criticize her if she drifts from those ideals.....Yet today if a person criticizes for the drifting away from those ideals set down by our forefathers they are quickly called un-patriotic. These days it is easy to become confused.

In the US a Patriot was once those who fought for liberty & justice for all. He or she so loves the ideals of America that they will criticize her if she drifts from those ideals.....Yet today if a person criticizes for the drifting away from those ideals set down by our forefathers they are quickly called un-patriotic. These days it is easy to become confused.

Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves yet blacks vote about 9-1 for Democrats who were for keeping slavery. And JFK with his tax cutting and military build-up would probably be a Republican today. Things change over time.

It's a good question. Orwell said it is "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.” I think that's a pretty good definition and is distinguishes it from nationalism and certainly jingoism.

In my own mind, patriotism is like payment on a debt owed for gifts received. from a benevolent and just nation. Sometimes the debt carries for generations and sometimes the creditor loses their fiduciary credibility to an extent you may feel your debt has been repayed in full and zero balance remains.

As an aside, I don't really think there's such a thing as national sovereignty in any real sense anymore. Governments are mush more related to each other than the people they are elected to serve. Like you, I'd probably answer the call, but only if it came from what I once considered the nation(an assortment of ideals worth defending), certainly not from the government.

A very good post Lannarebirth.

In the colonisation of the US, I have a book home Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by a guy called Jared who claims that most of the original natives "just died" on the invaders arrival. He describes the population of huge towns on the east coast totally devastated by disease only a year after Europeans started arriving.

We could wonder if the US would be different today if it's original inhabitants had been resistant to bugs like measles.

Still, without violence, it wouldn't have been able to exist.

The colony existed without violence for 70 years, at peace with Indians. Once violent colonists controlled the colony, the wars began - first with the French and the local Indians, then with the Crown - all unnecessarily. Maybe one war in 500 years seemed 'justified.' That was against a belligerent Germany who had been ruled by warring make-believe 'christians' for 1,600 years. Your 'so-called civilization' as Gandhi called it, has not even made serious attempts at non-violence. But a Hindu borrowed methods from a pacifist Jew, and a black American used those methods.

Your 'so-called civilization' as Gandhi called it, has not even made serious attempts at non-violence. But a Hindu borrowed methods from a pacifist Jew, and a black American used those methods.

If our "so-called civilization" had not been basically decent to start with, they would have crushed both of these fellows into the road. Non-violent protaet against the Soviet Union, China, Germany of Japan would have had painful results.

Your 'so-called civilization' as Gandhi called it, has not even made serious attempts at non-violence. But a Hindu borrowed methods from a pacifist Jew, and a black American used those methods.

If our "so-called civilization" had not been basically decent to start with, they would have crushed both of these fellows into the road. Non-violent protaet against the Soviet Union, China, Germany of Japan would have had painful results.

Granted, the civilization of colonial Britain was usually basically decent, in dealing with nonviolent demonstrators. Bull Connor in Birmingham wasn't. Against violent protesters, they killed. Yes, the Soviets, Chinese and 'christian Germans' killed whomever they wished, so they were worse. But I fail to see a significant difference between the raids on Guernica, Hamburg, London, Nanking, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc. Ground zero at Hiroshima was a Roman Catholic church.

Your 'so-called civilization' as Gandhi called it, has not even made serious attempts at non-violence. But a Hindu borrowed methods from a pacifist Jew, and a black American used those methods.

If our "so-called civilization" had not been basically decent to start with, they would have crushed both of these fellows into the road. Non-violent protaet against the Soviet Union, China, Germany of Japan would have had painful results.

Someone should go to the Palestinians and teach them just how successful Ghandi & MLK Jr were with their non-violent approach.

I am Canadian, and in my younger days I was VERY patriotic. However, as I get older and realize what scum we have had running the country for the past 40 years or so, I am getting less patriotic all the time. There are times when I can understand the Islamic terrorists point of view. Canada is STILL a great country for all its politically motivated faults, but it IS frustrating to know what should be and could be... but isn't.

Still, without violence, it wouldn't have been able to exist.

The colony existed without violence for 70 years, at peace with Indians. Once violent colonists controlled the colony, the wars began - first with the French and the local Indians, then with the Crown - all unnecessarily. Maybe one war in 500 years seemed 'justified.' That was against a belligerent Germany who had been ruled by warring make-believe 'christians' for 1,600 years. Your 'so-called civilization' as Gandhi called it, has not even made serious attempts at non-violence. But a Hindu borrowed methods from a pacifist Jew, and a black American used those methods.

As I said earlier PB, the Indians died like flies just by coming in contact with the colonists. The same happened with Australian Aboriginals and Polynesians.

It's no use attaching blame for this, I suppose that the Christians of the day would have said it was God's will.

XXX is STILL a great country for all its politically motivated faults, but it IS frustrating to know what should be and could be... but isn't.

That is a good way of putting it regardless which country you insert

Still, without violence, it wouldn't have been able to exist.

The colony existed without violence for 70 years, at peace with Indians. Once violent colonists controlled the colony, the wars began - first with the French and the local Indians, then with the Crown - all unnecessarily. Maybe one war in 500 years seemed 'justified.' That was against a belligerent Germany who had been ruled by warring make-believe 'christians' for 1,600 years. Your 'so-called civilization' as Gandhi called it, has not even made serious attempts at non-violence. But a Hindu borrowed methods from a pacifist Jew, and a black American used those methods.

As I said earlier PB, the Indians died like flies just by coming in contact with the colonists. The same happened with Australian Aboriginals and Polynesians.

It's no use attaching blame for this, I suppose that the Christians of the day would have said it was God's will.

I suppose so too.

Mind you, take the siege of Fort Pitt where there was deliberate infection of smallpox by giving the Indians blankets that were infected.

This documented situation begs the question: if some authorities were aware of the impact of biological warfare, were all of the authorities also aware of the implications....and what did they do, in humanitarian terms to counter accidental infection?

I'd say that they had no idea generally.

There are instances of reports of deliberate infection but poorly documented. Wiki says it was doubtful it worked in the Fort Pitt case.

I'd say it was hardly necessary, the diseases caused enough mayhem naturally.

Still, without violence, it wouldn't have been able to exist.

The colony existed without violence for 70 years, at peace with Indians. Once violent colonists controlled the colony, the wars began - first with the French and the local Indians, then with the Crown - all unnecessarily. Maybe one war in 500 years seemed 'justified.' That was against a belligerent Germany who had been ruled by warring make-believe 'christians' for 1,600 years. Your 'so-called civilization' as Gandhi called it, has not even made serious attempts at non-violence. But a Hindu borrowed methods from a pacifist Jew, and a black American used those methods.

As I said earlier PB, the Indians died like flies just by coming in contact with the colonists. The same happened with Australian Aboriginals and Polynesians.

It's no use attaching blame for this, I suppose that the Christians of the day would have said it was God's will.

I suppose so too.

Mind you, take the siege of Fort Pitt where there was deliberate infection of smallpox by giving the Indians blankets that were infected.

This documented situation begs the question: if some authorities were aware of the impact of biological warfare, were all of the authorities also aware of the implications....and what did they do, in humanitarian terms to counter accidental infection?

Here is what Wikipedia says about the Fort Pitt incident. The US was considered a colony of the United Kingdom at this time in history.

_______________________________________

As a result, in 1763 local Delawares and Shawnees took part in Pontiac's Rebellion, an effort to drive the British out of the region. The Indians' siege of Fort Pitt began on June 22, 1763, but the fort was too strong to be taken by force. In negotiations during the siege, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, the commander of Fort Pitt gave two Delaware emissaries blankets that had been exposed to smallpox, in hopes of infecting the surrounding Indians and ending the siege. The attempt was probably unsuccessful, and on August 1, 1763, most of the Indians broke off the siege in order to intercept an approaching force under Colonel Henry Bouquet, resulting in the Battle of Bushy Run. Bouquet fought off the attack and relieved Fort Pitt on August 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pitt_(Pennsylvania)

Here is what Wikipedia says about the Fort Pitt incident. The US was considered a colony of the United Kingdom at this time in history.

_______________________________________

As a result, in 1763 local Delawares and Shawnees took part in Pontiac's Rebellion, an effort to drive the British out of the region. The Indians' siege of Fort Pitt began on June 22, 1763, but the fort was too strong to be taken by force. In negotiations during the siege, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, the commander of Fort Pitt gave two Delaware emissaries blankets that had been exposed to smallpox, in hopes of infecting the surrounding Indians and ending the siege. The attempt was probably unsuccessful, and on August 1, 1763, most of the Indians broke off the siege in order to intercept an approaching force under Colonel Henry Bouquet, resulting in the Battle of Bushy Run. Bouquet fought off the attack and relieved Fort Pitt on August 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pitt_(Pennsylvania)

Fair enough. I'm not apportioning blame. I was just resonding to the idea put forth that there may have been no blame to be apportioned....except to God.

Fort Pitt is an example of the feasibility of deliberate infection.

I'd say that they had no idea generally.

There are instances of reports of deliberate infection but poorly documented. Wiki says it was doubtful it worked in the Fort Pitt case.

I'd say it was hardly necessary, the diseases caused enough mayhem naturally.

It was a holocaust to the indigenous peoples of both "American" continents. There may have been cases of intentional infection, this one being the most well documented case of intention:

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

but as you say, natural forces had already decimated and demoralized indigenous poulations.

All the conquerors of the Western Hemisphere, Australia and NZ and their descendants, except less than 1% who practiced Christian pacifism, shared 2 errors:

Their false churches taught that God did not want them to love their enemy and live peaceably;

The government taught that citizens must obey blindly when they declared war.

Funny thing: you atheists and agnostics have rejected religion, while still clinging to blind patriotism.