521
Is anyone else not feeling that patriotic for July 4? (feddit.nl)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
293 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I was talking to one of my friends and he mentioned staying home on July 4, citing how there are a lot of really ugly things going on in the US.

After thinking about this myself, I'm starting to feel the same way. Instead of being proud of the country, I'm feeling like I'm just another wallet that companies and the government are trying to suck all the money out of.

The cost of living is going up, the housing market is a nightmare, I don't feel very confident in our government at all, the job market is a nightmare...

I think I'll be staying home this year too... anyone else?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

Regardless, I find that "making their country better" should be a distant second to "making the world better", and perhaps a close third behind "making the crap you have on hand and the lives of those immediately around you better".

I find this statement odd. So you think it's best to start local, right? OK, so next from your immediate community, you should expand out, eventually to country, then to world, right? Isn't that the logical progression. From more influence to less? Why is your priority jumping all over?

Look, I am not a globalist anarchist.

Funnily enough, I am an Anarchist. I don't know if I'd call myself a globalist, but probably. I also believe in well structured democratic governments. Those aren't at odds with each other.

Maybe I was the right age to look at the EU and think that those don't have to be held to the absurd liberal idea of the nation-state,and that wherever a collective of humans have a common interest there should be governance structured to work with other layers of organization to improve things and enforce rights within that sphere. There is nothing magical about the nation-state layer of government that makes it more spiritually attuned to identity or the needs of the people. It's all administrative stuff as far as I'm concerned.

I think we're in agreement. This isn't counter to what I said. I'd say it's in unison with it. People should work to improve their governments in any way they can. They should try to reshape it to better represent them. That's what a patriot would do, not just settle for the status quo and assume they're the best possible version there can be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Well, then what fatherland is the patriot beholden to?

    Cause that's what the word means.

    I get it, particularly in countries where the nation state has overlapped more or less perfectly for a long time it's hard to shed the emotional attachment, but there's no need for it.

    See, the reason I go from small to international is precisely that the nation state takes care of itself. The world has agreed that it's the natural resting place of sovereignty and every other scale of governance or administration os derived from it. I don't like that much. I don't resent it, but I also don't give it immediate precedence over any other scale of government.

    A patriot may care for whatever arbitrary definition the XVIIIth century put on their identity and be well meaning enough about it. I'm not a patriot. The historical borders of what some consider a nation today have no particular relevance, beyond the fact that they happen to drive some level of administration. If anything, it's the level where the most people decide to infringe on each other's business just because they feel they have a right to ownership over that national identity. I have no particular interest in whitewashing any of that into some supposedly healthy version of patriotism that has very rarely existed in any way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Well, then what fatherland is the patriot beholden to?

    Cause that's what the word means.

    The land (and people), but not necessarily the state.

    (The term state ahead is really annoying.)

    Maybe part of it comes from being in the US, where we have a weird form of double governance of the "state" and "federal" governments. Which state are we loyal too, because they're both ours? It makes things more malleable. The states could agree to form a totally new federal government if they wanted to.

    A patriot may care for whatever arbitrary definition the XVIIIth century put on their identity and be well meaning enough about it. I'm not a patriot. The historical borders of what some consider a nation today have no particular relevance, beyond the fact that they happen to drive some level of administration.

    There are multiple definitions of country. Some don't care about the state that defines the borders. Your country is the land where you were born, not the state necessarily. One example that comes to mind in the US, which spans multiple states, is "Appalachia." Appalachian people are a broad culture group who live in the Appalachian mountain region, and are distinct from the states they reside, and the larger US obviously. They are countrymen of each other.

    I have no particular interest in whitewashing any of that into some supposedly healthy version of patriotism that has very rarely existed in any way.

    No, the problem is some other people have changed the term to mean nationalist. For example, in the US, people were called patriots for fighting for the people in the colonies against the state that controlled them (Britain). They didn't approve of the state and wanted to improve it, so they fought to change it and left the former state that was controlling them. Patriotism doesn't have to be blind support of a state, and I'd argue that isn't patriotism, because you aren't defending it from bad actors/actions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    The etymology of the term is certainly much older than the nation-state, but also entirely disconnected from modern meanings (or ironic/facetious, which I do appreciate). There is just no original, clean, virtuous instance of "patriot" dislodged from the nationalist undertones. It simply has never existed.

    The mistake you're making is assuming that US revolutionaries weren't nationalists or were praiseworthy or fundamentally different than British colonists. We're going to disagree on that one. I mean, never mind that they didn't invent the term or that their whitewashing of it was self-serving. Even if your timeline of events was true, I despise their patriotism as much as anybody else's. US revolutionaries weren't some ideal version of a patriot, they were nationalist independentists who happened to borrow some French revolutionary ideas about the liberal democratic state-nation organization slightly earlier than their previous administration did (and perhaps due to the first draft nature of the thing, slightly worse, too).

    I won't judge them by modern standards, but I also absolutely, entirely refuse to sacralize them or idealize them. They were what they were, and they are absolutely not the thing that's going to give patriotism a good name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    You're putting words in my mouth saying that I said American revolutionaries were great people. I never said such a thing, nor would I. Stop reading more into what I said than I actually said please.

    They were people willing to lay their lives down for something they thought was worth fighting for. Not out of some ignorance that the status quo is the best option, but because they wanted to make changes to improve things for their community (and their self too, sure). That's what patriotism is.

    I'd argue that it's necessarily not pristine. You have to be willing to get dirty. You don't win a war with honor. You win it by killing other people until the other side isn't fighting anymore. The same is true for any fight (not the killing necessarily, but being willing to do what needs to be done).

    I just brought them up as an example of patriotism though. I'm not saying they're a perfect example, just an example. This isn't about the US, like you're making it to be. You're not arguing against the point. Your entire comment can be boiled down to "American revolutionaries are bad" but it doesn't say really anything about patriotism.

    Anyway, my point is, don't let nationalists take the term. Maybe you don't, but most people have positive opinions if the term. It's easier and more useful to take the term back, because it isn't necessarily a nationalist term. There are plenty of leftist patriots throughout history and the world. The right is good at using language as a weapon. We should be too, and we shouldn't back off every time they try to use it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    OK, so it's just nationalism, then.

    I have a real problem trying to wrap my head around where you're drawing that line. Is the problem that "patriots" honestly believe they're making things better? Because it seems to me that the difference that leaves between a nationalist and a patriot is whether you agree with them.

    From the side of the victors it's easy to see slightly morally flawed patriots where, had things gone the other way, people would see nationalist zealots.

    I'm also surprised at you bringing up left and right divides. There are plenty of violent nationalists across the spectrum. I mean, it's definitely true that traditional leftists were internationalists (hell, left-wing movements organized in "internationals" and that's also the name of their anthem). So historically yeah, right wingers are more patriotic/nationalistic, but there's no shortage of left wing nationalists, either.

    I don't know, man, I struggle to share your very US-centric view, but also to see how anywhere in there is a distinction between those two terms. If patriots are just nationalists you like then you start to sound a lot like one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The difference is basically a nationalist thinks they're superior. They don't care about facts or anything, the just know they are the best. A patriot knows they can learn from others and improve things. They're trying to improve things, not just force themselves on others.

    I know I've said this so many times now, but you keep just wanting to say it's the same as nationalism. This is my last reply I think because you just keep insisting I'm saying things I'm not.

    I don't know, man, I struggle to share your very US-centric view...

    I used examples from the US. None of what I said had anything to do with the US outside of examples. I didn't say this is only the case in the US or anything like that. Again, you keep putting words in my mouth. Argue in good faith or don't at all. You're just wasting both of our time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    OK, so the difference is a nationalist is a supremacist and a patriot is not.

    So I'm back to my original statement, then. Patriotism sucks. Call it what you want, but allegiance to specifically a nation, nation-state or whatever construct you're assigning special status is bad and I actively oppose it.

    I'm not arguing in bad faith, I'm disagreeing. But you made it seem like we don't actually disagree and like you had a distinction that made patriotism not match the thing I'm saying is bad, so I want to understand if that's the case. It doesn't seem to be the case. You think patriotism is not a problem and think my negative characterization is of nationalism instead.

    Let me be clear, it is not.

    The patriotism you're talking about? The lovey-dovey "improve your country and learn from others" patriotism? It sucks. That's what I'm saying here.

    I'm also saying it's just whitewashed nationalism and that your distinction between supremacist nationalism and patriotic nationalism is superficial at best an non-existent at worst. Sure, not all nationalists or patriots are equally toxic, but that doesn't mean the concept of patriotism is salvageable into something positive.

    You owe no allegiance to your nation, beyond what ties you culturally to the groups of people that live within it. Just like you don't owe allegiance to your hometown beyond the same concerns. Or, you know, to the planet.

    You wanting to improve any one of those scales of human organization isn't any better or worse than the other, and the mere fact of implying any special relevance to one of them is a brand of nationalism I just don't find justified. It's a bit like religion. It can be well-intentioned and genuine, but in the long view of history it is undeniably an irrational, toxic force at the core of many atrocities. I will respect it and your right to participate in it, because the alternative is worse, but I won't take part in it and I don't think it's a good thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent