. appearance dot

What more can be said? I wish I was erudite enough to add something to your well-crafted opinion. Wow, just wow... thanks for that illuminating article.

To singrdave:

Thank you.

I think it's education. The English, Germans, Japanese and all the others who managed to build up that useful patriotism in the first and second world wars could do so because their citizens had no concept of the right to an opinion. These days everyone, from the most intellectually infantile to the most brilliant is under the impression that they have the right to an opinion and the responsibility to voice it.

If you want to blame a decline on patriotism on anything, blame it on our ancestors who told us to think for ourselves rather than letting our 'betters' do the thinking.

To cactoblasta:

I agree that everyone thinks they have the right to an opinion, and to air it, and while that can lead to all sorts of nonsense being current in the public sphere I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing in itself. Contemporary democracy is nothing without free exchange of opinion and open debate.

America could (and would, if need arose) fight any number of what might be called 'classical' wars, in which large-scale forces are deployed against each other, and have no fear of losing - being able to apply a greater degree of force to a wider range of targets for a more extended period than anyone else can. But she hasn't fought such a conflict since the end of WW2. Instead they have all been small wars fought against enemies who used alternative guerilla tactics. Wars not able to be won by the application of overwhelming force because the targets of that force are too mobile, too intimately familiar with the terrain, to be pinned down and crushed.

the shadow of Vietnam has haunted every conflict America has been involved in since that first great military, social, and political debacle. I think it was then that America's confidence in herself, in her own rectitude, her ability and worth, were first shaken. And every miserable conflict America has taken part in has been of the same type; unwinnable wars fought in remote lands for seemingly no gain at all - and an ongoing loss of America's good name in the world.

However, I also think that this crisis of confidence is not unique to America but is something that has permeated the West since the end of WW2 and the passing of the Old European Empires and the end of the colonial period. America has her own angst with its own sources. Europe has its ennui, its cynicism, its disdain for patriotism and its inability to conceive of itself as anything other than a loose alliance of trading partners with delusions of military glory. The sources are different, the expression is different but the end result, the malaise, is the same. In the case of Europe you can see its effects in the spinelessness of the response to militant Islam.

I found myself ashamed of my British origins when Jack Straw, then Foreign Minister under that pernicious insect Blair, assured Muslims in Britain that their 'feelings' would be respected - the same Muslims who had the previous day paraded down the streets of London carrying placards inciting the murder of all those who did not condemn the publication of the Muhammad cartoons.

I am not interested in the feelings of any section of society: white, black, yellow; christian or muslim or jew. I am interested in whether they obey the law or not, and I expect all persons and groups who break it to be punished (not 'rehabilitated' - punished). I'm also interested in government that is self-confident, that upholds the core values of the society it represents, whose will it ought to express. Multiculturalism, with all its craven accommodation of the alien and the stranger, is a phenomenon of cultures that have lost faith in themselves - even here, in America, a nation born out of a multiplicity of cultures. Nowadays there are such abominations as the 'African' American - instead of Americans whose skin is black and whose ancestry is African. The same could be said of any American who prefaces his nationality with another. Such tribalism might have had its uses in the early days of America, serving to illustrate that despite origins and ethnicity, a citizen of America was fundamentally American and not, say, Irish or Polish.

Tribalism of that kind could flourish precisely because there was another identification, with citizenhood and the Constitution, which gave to such tribalism an overarching framework that allowed it to exist with the idea of America as something to which loyalty ought to be given first.

In this time of effette multicultral faggotry and national self-doubt there can be no room for such tribalism anymore. Now primacy must be given to the American in a 'polish' or 'german' or 'african' American: because the two hundred or so years of America's existence have demonstrated that to secure unity among many who are different it's not origins that must be stressed but the framework of law which defines the polity - not merely the rights of citizens but the obligations of citizens must be emphasized and fulfilled.

How odd that it should have been JFK who laid the foundations of Johnson's 'Great Society' and its bloated welfarism - when it was he who had said "Ask not what your country can do for you - but what you can do for your country."

The young man I spoke to in Ohio had no faith in America. He had no faith in her elected government - neither in its honesty nor in its ability, and none whatsoever in her politicians (and looking at them who could blame him?) But he either did not know or had forgotten how much America has achieved - the establishment of a Republic on the basis of law, not wealth or caste; the defeat of first Fascism and then Communism, the two great ideological opponents of Democracy. The creation of a society in which opportunity does actually abound for those willing to take it up and to work hard. And too many other things beside for me to name here.

Too much has been forgotten, lost, and distorted in the rise of multiculturalism and with it sympathy for the stranger before faith in our own. I don't give a damn how many died at Wounded Knee - every death was necessary in the expansion of the American polity - and had you asked those responsible for those killings if they were justified I doubt they would have said anything but "Yes". that expansion helped produce this nation, was necessary to its existence, and is not a moral category to which judgments of 'right' and 'wrong' can be applied. It simply was, like any other force of nature that destroys what stands in its path.

Such a view isn't taught in American schools. Instead educationalists obsess over the most culturally sensitive way in which to convince kids that evil white men made America by killing noble red men, with the implication that the America they created is in itself evil because of the manner of its coming into being.

Fiddlesticks. The descendants of every slaughtered Indian ought to give thanks for that slaughter and be honoured by it - since their ancestors played a foundational role in the creation of America, and they now live to reap the benefits of that creation. And if they find they have no benefits then it's not the 'evil white men' who are at fault but they themselves, for having insufficient spine to adapt and become American, rather than languishing in drunken, self-pitying misery as 'native' Americans.

There is no such thing as a 'native' American (except in the sense of one born within the American Republic, as opposed to one whose ancestors were born on land which is now America). But the insistence on respecting such fatuous, artificial divisions is also a symptom of the malaise I spoke about, a society's lack of faith in itself and its achievements - something that can only be cured by the conscious effort of every American to hold on to the greatness of his or her country.

I agree that everyone thinks they have the right to an opinion, and to air it, and while that can lead to all sorts of nonsense being current in the public sphere I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing in itself. Contemporary democracy is nothing without free exchange of opinion and open debate.

Oh I don't consider it a bad thing. I'm one of those people who doesn't have much love for patriotism. I agree with whichever dead king said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Patriotism is a curse that blinds people to the pleasures of others.

I just don't think patriotism can survive amongst educated people. The more educated someone is, the more trained they are to question. The more someone questions, the less they like the answers. Either they eventually reach an acceptance with the answers or they continue to rage against the machine. Neither is the stuff of patriotism. Patriotism is in my view born of a kind of unthinking confidence and love. It's not in any way an intellectual thing.

Let's take Haditha for example. A patriot would have seen that happen and accepted that the government would do the right thing. Someone who's overly educated would ask questions - who, what, where, why, how? Now they may end up agreeing with the true patriot - America usually does do what's right for it - but the fact that they question at all is symptomatic of their lack of confidence and faith.

Of course this Socratic training helps the anti-patriot, who has the emotional desire to disbelieve without questioning. The anti-patriots have grown powerful in recent years as a result of their sheer intransigence and the wonders of modern communications, but they've always been with us. It's only in the last century or so that the elite has encouraged thinking amongst the lower classes and thus given their thoughts space in the national media and legitimacy in the eyes of the whole, but they're no new phenomenon.

For patriotism to reemerge the state must find some way to dissuade the populace from asking questions. I don't think it'll be too hard - the distractions the world dreams up these days are fantastic, and far better than bread and circuses - but I think it'll be a requirement before we see the return of world war patriotism.

Of course a great and powerful enemy would work just as well, but there aren't any these days so that's not likely.

Great article Emp.

I went to University right after my time in the Air Force. I was out of the service a week before classes started.

I went to University an uber patriot (this was when the 1st Gulf War was in full swing).

Imagine my disgust when after no more than a few weeks I realized most of the professors and students thought being patriotic "beneath them." It was a characteristic of the unwashed masses as far as they were concerned.

It is considered the "enlightened" view in academia to hate America, or to talk bad about her. Or at least it was when I was there.

I found it intolerable in most classes but especially in politics (where the prof made us watch hours of liberal comedians, reporters, etc) and Sociology.

I spent a lot of time arguing the profs points, so much in fact many thought I was "pre law"hahahhahaha...but in the end, on the tests, I regurgitated the "enlightened" garbage back onto paper to get an A in the class.

SO I was FORCED to learn their opinion, while they were obliged to dismiss mine. So much for always "seeking and questioning" which is the mantra of people who really never do it outside their comfort zone.

I found that to be the case in college. They were right and "enlightened" and unless you agreed with them you were wrong and uneducated.

So now many Americans believe that way too.

There was a gal on here Geryle who spouted liberal college speak as if it were gospel.

I walked away with a few of those liberal notions myself. But not long out in real life I saw them for the lies they are.

I love America. Would die for her. Would support my husband and children in doing the same. Why? Because we have something special. Something worth fighting for, worth dying for. It may not be as old and "sophisticated" as other countries, but its mine and I love her, warts and all.

Bursts into song... And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm freee... And I wont forget the men who died, that gave that right to meeee And I'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still todayyyy 'Cus there aint no doubt I love this lannnnd God bless the USAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Damn it, you gotta quit listening to Lee Greenwood try some Toby Keith.

Hey Uncle Sam Put your name at the top of his list And the Statue of Liberty Started shakin' her fist And the eagle will fly Man, it's gonna be hell When you hear Mother Freedom Start ringin' her bell And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you Brought to you Courtesy of the Red White and Blue

Or this one:

Justice is the one thing you should always find You got to saddle up your boys You got to draw a hard line When the gun smoke settles well sing a victory tune Well all meet back at the local saloon Well raise up our glasses against evil forces Singing whiskey for my men, beer for my horses We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds Weve got too much corruption, too much crime in the streets Its time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground Send em all to their maker and hell settle em down You can bet hell set em down cause

As to songs... here's my own favourite patriotic ditty...

Lloyd George knew my father
Father knew Lloyd George

Lloyd George knew my FAaaaaaatherrrrrr

FAaaaaaaaather knew Lloyd George

(repeat infinitely, to the tune of Onward Christian Soldiers)

To cactoblasta, and others making similar points -

I still fail to see why tha act of questioning should be seen as anti-patriotic. There's a sense in which the honest citizen ought to subject everything his government does to questioning - because everything done is done in his name.

Patriotism should never be blind, especially in a democracy and still more so in a Republic founded on the idea that it is the will of the people that rules. Citizens, even citizen-soldiers (perhaps especially them) ought to look at what is done in their name with a critical eye. That does not mean that a citizen-soldier has the right to question and disobey his Officers' commands - merely that, should the citizen-soldier survive, he will return with a critical assessment of his government's objectives in whatever conflict he has returned from, it's conduct of that conflict, whether or not it achieved its stated aims and so on.

It's through the ballot box that the citizen-soldier expresses that judgment - not on the battlefield.

you can be a soldier, a patriot - and still ask difficult questions as part of the proper democratic channels for such things.

It's not the asking of questions that imperils patriotism, but the belief that there are only negative questions that have only negative answers.

To little-whip:

V^^^^^^V and thank you - but then, you know God loves lions tooooo (family joke).

[quote[I still fail to see why tha act of questioning should be seen as anti-patriotic. There's a sense in which the honest citizen ought to subject everything his government does to questioning - because everything done is done in his name.

Of course. But the kind of patriotism that existed in the glory days of the world wars wasn't a questioning patriotism. People honestly believed, despite the utter ridiculousness of the propaganda. It's clear from personal accounts of the times that people actually believed, and in great numbers, that Jews were a lesser race, or that all the races of the world were inferior to the Japanese. Their belief was unquestioning, which was advantageous because that kind of faith rarely stands up to interrogation.

It's that kind of patriotic fervour that I think is dead to the questioning world. Compared to that level of faith, what you suggest is just a pale imitation.

But maybe we just have different ideas of what patriotism is.

Oh, and speaking of patriotic songs, it still turns me patriot to hear that godawful song, "I am, you are, we are Australian". I blame Qantas and their insidious advertising.

#14 by EmperorofIceCream Tue, June 06, 2006 10:33 AM

It's not the asking of questions that imperils patriotism, but the belief that there are only negative questions that have only negative answers.

Here! Here!! MM jumps to feet and breaks out in wild applause!

Excellent article. Is it featured? If it's not, it should be.

I agree about the wife. I can't imagine what kind of wench would do something like that.

To cactoblasta:

As I said originally, I don't understand the American sense of patriotism in the visceral way that many Americans appear to experience it. And I'm not entirely sure that this visceral commitment is a good thing. Being English, I take a less emotive and more intellectual approach - so that my patriotism relates to law, the Constitution, the duties and rights of citizens, rather than to any sense of 'my country, right or wrong'. But whatever approach is taken, it remains true that in time of war, and independently of any agreement or otherwise with the cause of war, the citizen has an absolute obligation to support the armed forces of his country in their struggle.