Give your patriotism a boost here: Share what makes you feel patriotic

[Nighthawk]

From...."give your patriotism a boost here: Share what makes you feel patriotic"....to remarks of just the opposite...and then lessons on something else entirely. Very impressive and what a boost.....

The mark of a good discussion is that other viewpoints and related ideas can be brought up.

Still, I don't see why this thread wasn't closed immediately. Tell me again, how is patriotism 'vintage'? Of course, we're allowed to discuss modern movies in the Moving Picture forum, so does the vintage monkier only apply to TOB?

Curiously,

NH

 

[HoosierDaddy]

The mark of a good discussion is that other viewpoints and related ideas can be brought up.

Still, I don't see why this thread wasn't closed immediately. Tell me again, how is patriotism 'vintage'? Of course, we're allowed to discuss modern movies in the Moving Picture forum, so does the vintage monkier only apply to TOB?

Curiously,

NH

Well then..perhaps.."Lets discuss patriotism here:Share what makes you feel patriotic or not" might have been a better opening for such a wide ranging exchange of viewpoints and history. Patriotism vintage? It has been around a long time. I am surprised that it wasn't locked when politics inevitably began creeping in the thread,tho. It would be a shame for patriotism to be banned along with politics...but some seem to realize little difference these days.
HD

 

[Dr Doran]

. It would be a shame for patriotism to be banned along with politics...but some seem to realize little difference these days.
HD

:rage:

 

[Mike in Seattle]

A local theatre company did 1776 and I had to run to the office one day a couple weeks before opening to drop off something the other half left behind. One of the crew saw me drive up and said "Can you give me a hand for a minute?" There was a 20' long roll of something to be carried in. We put it on the stage and I ran around saying "Hi!" to various folks - when I came back out the 20' roll of something was unrolled on the stage. It was a 20' wide, probably 20' long replica of the Declaration of Independence that the set designer had painstakingly painted by hand - spent a weekend with it projected on the canvas painting line by line. It was really amazing. I've seen the show many times and in many different ways and the final scene is just amazing and gets ya...right here.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I have been striving to keep this thread open and editing the blatantly political stuff.

 

[Dr Doran]

I have been striving to keep this thread open and editing the blatantly political stuff.

In my experience you are very good and careful at that. One might even say that you use a scalpel, rather than a hatchet, which is of course the proper way to do any sort of thing like this. As well as various other important things.

 

[Spitfire]

Thank you for keeping this post open - even when it became more interesting than flagwaving, appelpie, John Wayne and other vintage virtues.
It has been a great debate to follow. One of the best for a very, very long time.:eusa_clap

 

[HungaryTom]

I can speak only for myself.

Interesting to read opinions of so many nations. Being citizen of a current/former superpower, mid-sized power, small nation makes a big difference in the state of being.

I love my homeland - even if we were/are not always on the sunny side.

In the great world outside of here
There is no place for you
May fortune's hand bless or beat you
Here you must live and die

This rhymes in the original APPEAL - the hymn my grandpa quoted his family when he decided not to emigrate in 1956.

Yes we have a lot of famous people in arts&humanities, science&technology for which one can be proud of -like so many small nations- and a few blessed moments in history.

I personally know how much better it is in financial terms to live in a wealthier place - but here at home one does not have to explain why/how long one will stay what is the legal status plus everything is familiar from the childhood onwards etc. And I see 1st generation emigrants who are in between what they left behind (their youth and their world) that does exist only in their memories and the new homeland where they could not adapt 100%. Basically uprooted people whatever wealthy they are.

This is why I plain and simply love my homeland - a good place to return and from where one can reach out to the world.

That is the essence of my patriotism.

P.S. Ah, I forgot the language barrier - being encapsuled in it everywhere in the outside world... I can be 100% myself only in the mother-tongue.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

In my experience you are very good and careful at that. One might even say that you use a scalpel, rather than a hatchet, which is of course the proper way to do any sort of thing like this. As well as various other important things.

....but then...if there was an abundance of deliberate on going corruption...a hatchet could solve that constant abuse...while also using a scalpel to simply remodel something of better value......

 

[Lefty]

Enough with the veiled talk of scalpels and hatchets, let's just get Nixon on this and get out the shredders.

 

[reetpleat]

I agree with the Churchill quote.

However, the term tyrant has a slightly more complex origin. We get it from Greek tyrannos which is a non-Greek word. They got it in the seventh or 6th century BC from the Lydians who inhabited Asia Minor. All it originally meant was a person who seized power unconstitutionally. The original Greek tyrants (or, that is, persons upon whom the word tyrant was used) had large bases of popular support and distinguished themselves from the aristocrats. In many cases the tyrants broke existing aristocratic oligarchies and were loved by people (but not by the aristocrats who opposed them; these people usually went into self-imposed exile), often giving a better deal to the masses than they had received from the previous oligarchy. In some cases such as Athens, a tyrannical period seems to have represented a break from constant aristocratic factionalism, and after the tyrannical period, lasting in the Athenians' case for two generations alone, a democracy was established.
So that's the source behind the idea of a benevolent tyrant. It's not originally an oxymoron. The term tyrant began to collect exclusively negative meanings only after its use in archaic and classical Greece.

The thing is, if we actually had a dictator who did what was best for the people, they might not mind him. They wanted to make george Washington king. Problem is, that could never happen, because while some leaders might be out for themselves, many leaders in a democracy actually do what they believe is best for the country. But a country is so diverse, with so many competing interests, that no one can make them all happy, so about fifty percent of the people lets say, will always feel they are being put upon and mistreated by any ruler, so the only way they can actually tolerate it is to believe that the ruler came to power through a democratic process.

No leader, no matter how good and smart and righteous could ever make everyone happy.

Is this different from ancient times. When we hear of some wise, well regarded king, was that because he controlled who wrote th histories? Were there leaders in ancient times that pleased everyone.

I guess if a leader brought prosperity to a land, through battle or whatever, then many people would be pleased. But were there pacifists who did not want their sons to go to war and were displeased with the king. If a king made peace with the neighbors, were there merchants or military men who would think they were weak and bad leaders?

 

[HarpPlayerGene]

I have been striving to keep this thread open and editing the blatantly political stuff.

Good call. And thanks.

I chimed in earlier on when the posts were simply responses to the original thread title/question. Since I have direct answers to that, I typed them up. Didn't realize this could be debatable. It'd be like asking "What makes orange your favorite color?" I'd figure only those to whom that applies would want to answer and not be 'corrected' and countered by those who prefer green.

It doesn't spoil it, it's just kind of comical.

 

[Spitfire]

I think it's fantastic that we can have this civil discusson instead of "Everebody who think orange is great say Aye."
That's just mutual satisfaction. And so what?[huh]
In another forum - no names mentioned - I posted in a thread:
"Tatoos are awesom" and said that I found tatoos were pretty awfull - and all hell broke loose. Nobody was interested in hearing the other side.
Disregarding the fact, that there allways are other sides.
I strongly believe that the internet is made for openminded discussions - and if we all can keep it civilized - it will only widen our horizon and we will all benefit from it. Like this thread.

 

[PADDY]

As a Brit...

...I was actually surprisingly 'moved' by all the national flags on the flagstaffs of buildings or hanging on the walls of bus stations..etc, in the USA. I 'liked' this public display of the nation's flag, and people wearing little mini flags on their jackets. It is a public, unabashed display of patriotism and pride.

Personally, I'd like to see more of a 'public demonstration' of pride in 'our flag' and 'nation' in Great Britain (UK). As I am patriotic about seeing my country's flag flyng in the breeze.

Sadly, many young folk now cannot even sing our National Anthem (don't know the words or the tune [huh] ). I'd like to see the X-Factor being put into our young people knowing how to sing their Nation's Anthem and 'what they have' to be proud of, in being British and rebuild the community spirit and national spirit that we were once so proud to have.

'If' tomorrow it was 1940 all over again and a hostile force across the Channel was poised to invade these islands of ours, I really don't think we'd have the social cohesion, national pride, or 'be bothered' to stand up and fight for each other [huh] We need to regain our communal sense of patriotism and that starts with looking out for each other rather than just Number One.

 

[Spitfire]

Paddy, with all due respect. I think you would find the brits ready, if the situation appeared again (Let's hope not)
If you look back at the 30's in GB, the country wasn't really united back then either. But when the clouds appeared in the horizon they stood together.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Paddy, with all due respect. I think you would find the brits ready, if the situation appeared again (Let's hope not)

Yes, i agree. One of the many beauties of the current European experiment - one of the main reasons to be proud of it - is the decreased likelihood of such an event from traditional enemies. Of course we have an ugly head rearing from the eastward borders, but it's greedy and petulent enough to be contained.

If you look back at the 30's in GB, the country wasn't really united back then either.

to say the least!

bk

 

[HungaryTom]

One sentence on tyranny

This poem is dated 1950/51 (dated because it was NOT written down until 1956, few days after the tyranny collapsed - just spread through oral recitation in order to avoid written evidence) in a system where the leader was the camarade of people - supersized transparents and statues featuring his benevolent smile.
All tyrants think they are benevolent and improve humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTNtC5jiSuE&feature=related

So democracy is better with all its mistakes - there is no good tyranny.

Monarchy is another thing> with todays constitutional world and the checks and balances of power it is really a matter of state model and the respective tradition whether the Souvereign is a President or a King.
The traditional dynasties with divine origins adored by their people as demi-gods - this does not exist any more.

I raised these points since the idea of benevolent tyranny came up in this thread.

 

[Edward]

Is this different from ancient times. When we hear of some wise, well regarded king, was that because he controlled who wrote th histories? Were there leaders in ancient times that pleased everyone.

I guess if a leader brought prosperity to a land, through battle or whatever, then many people would be pleased. But were there pacifists who did not want their sons to go to war and were displeased with the king. If a king made peace with the neighbors, were there merchants or military men who would think they were weak and bad leaders?

It is very difficult to apply this sort of analysis too far back in history. What is important to bear in mind is that, however subtly they may be distinguished today, 'patriotism' didn't really exist until the wave of nationalism that spread throughout Europe in the latter 18th Century. Prior to that, folks in general's focus was very much a localised thing, and most had little awareness of the world beyond. British Patriotism was actively encouraged in the wake of the Act of Union, also Culloden / the Highland Clearances - as a way of creating and maintaining a uniform identity which would make nationalist risings among the Scots / Welsh and later the Irish less likely. Of course, it didn't always pan out like that in practice, people's own identity, cultural, national or otherwise, being a rather nebulous beast, but that was the theory at least. From then on, the idea of national identity, and pride therein, became a stronger concept, something which hadn't really existed before. In the Celtic territories especially things were extremely localised in an earlier stage: even at Culloden (which was ultimately about competing rights to the English throne rather than Scottish independence or otherwise), many clans fought on one side or other on the basis of ancient clan rivalries as opposed to whether they believed themselves fighting for Scotland or English rule. In Ireland, the very beginnings of British rule on the Island, the arrival of the Anglo Normans in the South, was with the assistance of Dermott, a regional king who married his daughter to Norman Lord Strongbow, seeking to use a political allegiance with the Normans in order to strengthen his own position against his surrounding rivals.

The short of it is that while patriotism can certainly qualify as 'vintage,' it is also something firmly rooted in the (relatively) modern world.

 

[LordBest]

Personally I prefer a Monarch to a President simply because I trust someone brought up in an environment of service and duty all their life to a man driven by ambition. I realise many will disagree. In Australia I think we have the ideal balance. A head of government chosen by the people, a head of state with reserve power, chosen by parliamentary concensus, but who answers to an impartial third party, The Crown.

Benevolent tyranny is an oxymoron, as people have noted. But I think it has been confused with enlightened despotism, which is something else entirely. Many of the greatest monarchs of the 18th century were 'enlightened despots' people who believe they had a responsibility to their people as sovereign, but at the same time held absolute power. Friedrich the Great of Prussia and Catherine the Great of Russia are two examples which spring to mind.

 

[Chas]

All in all, everything has it's shadow side, and, as I've tried (and, I think succeeded) in conveying is that there are certain things (e.g. patriotism, religion) that are invariably taken to extremes to the detriment of many.

So I eschew religious belief and patriotism.

" am a citizen of the world" ~ Diogenes of Sinope