Positive aspects of patriotism

What are rational positive aspects of patriotism?
It doesn't make sense in the current world, pride in something we have no control over, such as history is irrational and quite frankly, dumb. In the United States for example it's actually seen as a virtue, where censorship, war, discrimination, ignorance etc are disguised as patriotism, like if it's a good thing. I mean, everyone notices the excess of flags right? Don't you question it? It's very close to brainwashing.

Sure if I'm on an international site and see Pasteis de Bel?m or Pasteis de Bacalhau mentioned I get kinda of happy, but that's emotional, not rational, it doesn't make sense to be pride of it.

So what does patriotism bring that is good for the humanity? Because currently I can see nothing.

Patriotism gives you a reason to get up in the morning. It's something larger than yourself to be a part of and serve that grants real importance to your life. It's a cause, much like all the other -isms and religions, all of which have their biases to which they expect their members to adhere.

No, it's not strictly rational. But what, then, is the rational basis for doing anything?

Wanting your country to be better than it is is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that this often is taken to mean better than other nations, and one of the easier ways of doing this is to ignore issues your country has rather than facing and correcting them.

So, nothing so far eh.

Veylon:
Patriotism gives you a reason to get up in the morning.

That's sad really.

thaluikhain:
Wanting your country to be better than it is is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that this often is taken to mean better than other nations, and one of the easier ways of doing this is to ignore issues your country has rather than facing and correcting them.

This tbh.

Being a patriot in the USA means a lot of things to what a patriot in Europe will be, but in general its a drive to want your country to be the best that it can be, and help provide the best life for its citizens. It's knowing one's history and trying to carry on that cultural legacy.

The only sound reason I can think of would be as a rallying call against an invading hostile force/army. This is largely I think where the idea often originated, but of course can easily be extended to a rallying call to invade someone else. And this example isn't something that can really be extended to humanity as a whole, at least not unless Earth itself is invaded by extraterrestrials.

Patriotism (as opposed to nationalism or xenophobia) can be thought of as a very large-scale form of kin altruism. I can see this having some benefits like an increased sense of civic duty, a willingness to self-sacrifice for the good of one's country, greater propensity to support domestic welfare and environmental policies, and so on.

Batou667:
Patriotism (as opposed to nationalism or xenophobia) can be thought of as a very large-scale form of kin altruism. I can see this having some benefits like an increased sense of civic duty, a willingness to self-sacrifice for the good of one's country, greater propensity to support domestic welfare and environmental policies, and so on.

You don't need patriotism for that. You can do that on a global scale.

Patriotism can be very unifying, it can bring together a diverse community and say, "Yes, we may be English, Scottish or Welsh, white, black or Asian, we may have different religious or political views but we're all ultimately British." It can help protect core values like democracy and freedom of speech by taking pride in them as our national values. Of course, you have to be careful patriotism isn't warped into supporting a nation's more dubious actions, or into outright racism.

Full Metal Bolshevik:

Batou667:
Patriotism (as opposed to nationalism or xenophobia) can be thought of as a very large-scale form of kin altruism. I can see this having some benefits like an increased sense of civic duty, a willingness to self-sacrifice for the good of one's country, greater propensity to support domestic welfare and environmental policies, and so on.

You don't need patriotism for that. You can do that on a global scale.

On a global scale such an approach tends to be a losing proposition, because the globe is not politically united. In the current environment and all previous, countries or regions filled with patriots just do better than countries or regions filled with humanitarians. Patriotism is a manifestation of the winning approach to the game: keep what you have and take what you can get.

Every aspect of ideas can be used positively or negatively. Brainwashing can help accelerate the said process of positive/negative - ness. Use your own opinion.

Patriotism would bring more sense of... union to the country, but less of it to the smaller/larger group said country belongs to/has - unavoidable since focus is met on the country itself.

It is also (reasonably)powerful and easy to integrate nation-wide scale if it needs to be.

Patriotism can bring traditional population(as in, they were part of the country for the acceptable amount of time period - generally like, 2 generation) of the said country.

It also brings violence against those who are deemed to cause harm for the country.(which could be called as xenophobia because it largely targets those who are deemed "foreigners" for the country)

I believe it to be one of the best attitude for country to enter and fight against another nation.

The great thing about patriotism is that if there are things wrong in your country you don't have to acknowledge that sometimes the society you live in can be pretty jacked up, then go through any kind of rational process of acceptance of realizing its okay because you didn't choose to live there and all you can do as an individual is to try and make things a bit better in your own tiny way, you can simply blame someone who you see as an "outsider" to your country instead!

That must be a wonderfully easy and convenient way to imagine the world.

Nationalism/patriotism has never united people without simultaneously dividing them. Germany, for example, came into existence because its people felt united by nationalist sentiment, but in imagining that unity it became inevitable that people would start to consider what people around them they might not be united with.. I think I don't need to explain where that ended. Even today, patriotism remains one of the most divisive forces on earth, particularly when people start feeling it towards countries they aren't currently part of or which don't currently exist.

Full Metal Bolshevik:

You don't need patriotism for that. You can do that on a global scale.

You can indeed (and should). However, whenever you head to a particularly nice area, park or town, it's a fair bet it owes its conservation to parties close to home.

Seanchaidh:
Patriotism is a manifestation of the winning approach to the game: keep what you have and take what you can get.

I can think of more than a few less-than-savoury things we could also describe with that.

JoJo:
Patriotism can be very unifying, it can bring together a diverse community and say, "Yes, we may be English, Scottish or Welsh, white, black or Asian, we may have different religious or political views but we're all ultimately British." It can help protect core values like democracy and freedom of speech by taking pride in them as our national values. Of course, you have to be careful patriotism isn't warped into supporting a nation's more dubious actions, or into outright racism.

Your silly talk of moderation has no place here.

Patriotism is another form of tribalism and though it's easy to point out the ills of tribalism, humans haven't clung to it so hard through its pitfalls by random chance. That sense of national pride and patriotism that can be used to promote wars of aggression based on a sense of superiority and entitlement over others is the same sense that leads subservient nations to rebel against imperial overlords. A modern example of a lack of patriotism being a bad thing would be Iraq. Identification with tribe, family, and religion are paramount and identification as an Iraqi is way off in the distance if it's even acknowledged. Thus there is no real impetus to improve the country as a whole. The way they see Iraq as a nation and a government is similar to how many Americans view global government like the U.N.

Patriotism is good for keeping out the filthy commies who grew up with star trek and got the idea that communism is a good thing slammed into their skulls.

What's the American saying? Oh yes, BETTER DEAD THAN RED!

The way I see it, there are two kinds of patriotism. There's the kind of patriotism that motivates people to look at their country critically, analyze its problems, and work to address those problems to make the country better. And then there's the kind of patriotism that motivates people to ignore and deny their country's problems so they can continually shout that WE'RE THE BEST, WE'RE THE BEST without having to deal with any inconvenient facts which might prove them wrong. The first is a positive force because it's founded on truth and is driven by the intention of improvement, whereas the second is a negative force because it's founded on the denial of truth and is driven by the intention of hiding from problems.

evilthecat:

Nationalism/patriotism has never united people without simultaneously dividing them. Germany, for example, came into existence because its people felt united by nationalist sentiment, but in imagining that unity it became inevitable that people would start to consider what people around them they might not be united with.. I think I don't need to explain where that ended.

I think united Germany should get more credit for maintaining the balance of power in the concert of Europe for as long as it did than it should receive blame for how suddenly it fell apart. I view WW1 as the ultimate tragedy of errors.

LetalisK:
I think united Germany should get more credit for maintaining the balance of power in the concert of Europe for as long as it did than it should receive blame for how suddenly it fell apart. I view WW1 as the ultimate tragedy of errors.

I was referring to antisemitism.

The impact of German unification on European inter-state politics of the time.. generally positive in my eyes. But I find it hard to overlook the astonishing coincidence that exactly at the point people started to develop the idea of a pan-german national identity which was admirable and worth celebrating just so happens to be the point at which those same people started to suddenly get very anxious about the fact that a community of people with a 2000 year tradition of being completely harmless if not overtly beneficial to the host societies in which they lived might be living in the same space.

Saying you're "united" with someone is basically the same thing as saying you're not united with someone else.

Lilani:
The way I see it, there are two kinds of patriotism. There's the kind of patriotism that motivates people to look at their country critically, analyze its problems, and work to address those problems to make the country better. And then there's the kind of patriotism that motivates people to ignore and deny their country's problems so they can continually shout that WE'RE THE BEST, WE'RE THE BEST without having to deal with any inconvenient facts which might prove them wrong. The first is a positive force because it's founded on truth and is driven by the intention of improvement, whereas the second is a negative force because it's founded on the denial of truth and is driven by the intention of hiding from problems.

They are both exclusive and discriminatory based on a geographical location called country.
Why would I want to defend my country? I have more in common with an unemployed from Canada than with a rich company owner from my own country.

evilthecat:

Saying you're "united" with someone is basically the same thing as saying you're not united with someone else.

Could you be against the institution of monogamy?

Full Metal Bolshevik:
So, nothing so far eh.

Veylon:
Patriotism gives you a reason to get up in the morning.

That's sad really.

It is indeed. There's a fair number people throughout history who built their whole lives around how much they loved their country only to collapse into depression or resort to suicide when it decided to screw them over.

Full Metal Bolshevik:

Lilani:
The way I see it, there are two kinds of patriotism. There's the kind of patriotism that motivates people to look at their country critically, analyze its problems, and work to address those problems to make the country better. And then there's the kind of patriotism that motivates people to ignore and deny their country's problems so they can continually shout that WE'RE THE BEST, WE'RE THE BEST without having to deal with any inconvenient facts which might prove them wrong. The first is a positive force because it's founded on truth and is driven by the intention of improvement, whereas the second is a negative force because it's founded on the denial of truth and is driven by the intention of hiding from problems.

They are both exclusive and discriminatory based on a geographical location called country.
Why would I want to defend my country? I have more in common with an unemployed from Canada than with a rich company owner from my own country.

I'm not sure you read the post you're quoting.

The first form has nothing to do with defending one's country, but with wanting it to improve. And that makes sense, because in the real world, we really only have a tiny, tiny portion of control of our country, and no-one else's.

You have more in common with the unemployed in Canada, except that you form part of the vote, the people of your country.

Basically the first is about wanting to improve the place you live(And that can be for other people). It's not deciding it's the best based on your birth. It's a positive force for change that's been shared by every revolutionary and activist who's ever changed the world.

Which does a lot more for everyone than saying, well, I have more in common with the unemployed in Canada, I wouldn't want to be exclusionary and discriminatory, better not do anything. Hell, one of the things that one might want changed are things like say, immigration policy, which does make the notion of nationality exclusionary and discriminatory?

Distasteful as it may be, nations are things, and nothing is done by ignoring that. You can love a place simply for being your home, and want to make it better, and doing so may in fact be anti-nationalist.

I love my country and i recognize its flaws and aim to do my best to improve the situation. I recognize other countries have problems but both liberals and conservatives tell me to shut up about those issues when it doesn't benefit them. the woes of a moderate.

Anyway's patriotism to a moderate degree can be really useful and lead to change or betterment of a country. Taken to an extreme it can cause problem's, but that applies to everything.

evilthecat:

LetalisK:
I think united Germany should get more credit for maintaining the balance of power in the concert of Europe for as long as it did than it should receive blame for how suddenly it fell apart. I view WW1 as the ultimate tragedy of errors.

I was referring to antisemitism.

The impact of German unification on European inter-state politics of the time.. generally positive in my eyes. But I find it hard to overlook the astonishing coincidence that exactly at the point people started to develop the idea of a pan-german national identity which was admirable and worth celebrating just so happens to be the point at which those same people started to suddenly get very anxious about the fact that a community of people with a 2000 year tradition of being completely harmless if not overtly beneficial to the host societies in which they lived might be living in the same space.

Saying you're "united" with someone is basically the same thing as saying you're not united with someone else.

Fair enough.[1]

I would point out that with your last line it doesn't mean it's a negative thing by default. Or positive, it could be neutral. The devil is in the detail: why? A white supremacist group and an urban community of Korean-Americans both unite within each other on the basis of ethnicity, shared culture, probably some fear, etc often to the exclusion of others, but they do have some differences in the "why?" and end up with vastly different actions and effects. I could be reading waaaay too much into what you wrote, but I don't see "Nationalism/patriotism has never united people without simultaneously dividing them" as something that has or should have an inherent or default value judgement to it.

[1] I would refine it more that the unification of Germany didn't start anti-semitism so much as it resulted in anti-immigrant sentiment which turned into general anti-semitism later because the immigrants at the time were Jews being run out of Russia(even the German Jews had issues with these "backwater" Russian Jews that were seen in a similar light as America's Mexican immigrants today). Six of one, half a dozen of another and I'm being anal.

LetalisK:
A modern example of a lack of patriotism being a bad thing would be Iraq. Identification with tribe, family, and religion are paramount and identification as an Iraqi is way off in the distance if it's even acknowledged. Thus there is no real impetus to improve the country as a whole. The way they see Iraq as a nation and a government is similar to how many Americans view global government like the U.N.

Well...not sure if the problem is not seeing Iraq as a nation, or other nations seeing it as such and assuming the people of Iraq do or should.

thaluikhain:

LetalisK:
A modern example of a lack of patriotism being a bad thing would be Iraq. Identification with tribe, family, and religion are paramount and identification as an Iraqi is way off in the distance if it's even acknowledged. Thus there is no real impetus to improve the country as a whole. The way they see Iraq as a nation and a government is similar to how many Americans view global government like the U.N.

Well...not sure if the problem is not seeing Iraq as a nation, or other nations seeing it as such and assuming the people of Iraq do or should.

If Iraqis' lack of national identification simply resulted in the various groups just going their own separate ways to live and let live, then it wouldn't be a problem. As it is it becomes a part the cycle of "us vs them" sectarian violence.

evilthecat:
. But I find it hard to overlook the astonishing coincidence that exactly at the point people started to develop the idea of a pan-german national identity which was admirable and worth celebrating just so happens to be the point at which those same people started to suddenly get very anxious about the fact that a community of people with a 2000 year tradition of being completely harmless if not overtly beneficial to the host societies in which they lived might be living in the same space.

"Started"? There has been antisemitism in that area since the time of Charlegmagne at least. The holocaust isn't the first massacre of Jews in Germany or the Holy Roman Empire, just the largest and most industrially organized. The connection to the formation of a German national identity is rather spurious, as much of the same shit that was being said to justify the holocaust also justified earlier pogroms long before "Germany" was considered a thing.

I generally dislike the word, because it feels like it's long since been co-opted by xenophobic dicks who seem to believe the US is the BEST COUNTRY EVER and anyone who disagrees is probably some kind of traitor/communist/terrorist.

However, I do think there are positives to be had with it. Believing that your country has ideals it should live up to and having pride in something that encourages ownership and trying to make it better.

I just wish that's what I saw more often then "My country, right or wrong!" with the implication that it's always right that gets so irritating.

Quite frankly I think it should be discarded even if it did have seen beneficial aspect. It's a rather bad and irrational train of thought. Those can make you feel good but I'd say it's better to be reasonable than to rely on fantasy for its benefits.

If something is good to do then you don't need a nonsensical motive for it.

LetalisK:
I would point out that with your last line it doesn't mean it's a negative thing by default.

True, but it does kind of counter the notion that patriotism/nationalism (which I'm using interchangably even though I know of know that's wrong) serves as a unitary force in general. Most things that unite people are also dividing them in different ways, I do think we have to beware of the things that seem to bring us together or unite us in commonality, and to look at what kind of divisions or exceptions they're using to accomplish that.

To say that patriotism, in particular, brings people together is problematic to me. Patriotism is based on an idea of the nation, so the division that is being made to accomplish the unification is between one nation and another. Now, if nations in this sense were purely arbitrary divisions of the world's land mass, that maybe wouldn't be so problematic.. It would be weird and pointless, but not necessarily problematic. The problem is that patriots tend to assume their nation has a particular character, a particular set of virtues, which distinguish it from other nations and, importantly, from other people. When people claim to have been united by patriotism, they generally aren't claiming to be united with everyone living within the geographical borders of their nation, but rather only with those seem to fit the ethos or virtue they ascribe to the nation itself. For example, a Jew whose family has lived in Germany for centuries is nonetheless not "really" German, they have a character which is fundamentally different to the virtuous quality of the German people. They inhabit the same space, but they do not have an authentic right to that space.

It's a very dangerous line of thought.

aelreth:
Could you be against the institution of monogamy?

Personally, yes, although not in the sense that I know it works for other people. I don't think the human race needs to form a giant orgiastic flesh ball.. it's okay to say you're going to remain separate from one person so you can fully concentrate on being united with someone else, that's fine and makes total sense.

However, when you're talking about nation states which, among other things, serve to protect their subjects or citizens from violence and which which hold the power of life and death, things get slightly more hardball.. so to speak.

evilthecat:

LetalisK:
"Started"? There has been antisemitism in that area since the time of Charlegmagne at least.

True if you count antisemitism as simply the dislike or ill treatment of Jews. I don't think that's technically accurate though. Perspecution of Jews in medieval and early modern history was generally based on religious justifications or myths about Jewish ritual practices, such as the allegation of deicide or claims regarding the blood libel or host desecration. Jews were mistreated and even killed, sometimes in fairly large numbers, but the violence against them was sporadic and disorganized and largely indistinct from the way protestants and Catholics treated each other during the reformation, or the way Muslims were treated in parts of Christendom where they lived (indeed, in Southern Europe persecution of Jews and Muslims was strongly interlinked). Christianity, historically, has no real theological basis for religious tolerance and as such until the early modern period has always been exceptionally brutal to religious minorities.

Anti-semitism was a racist ideology which largely replaced the religious justifications for hatred of Jews with "rational" scientific ones grounded in romantic nationalism and racial theory. Anti-semites didn't argue that Jews killed Jesus and were bad people, they argued that Jews didn't belong in Europe because they weren't Europeans, and by being in Europe they were effectively "polluting" the character of its nations and people, which had a history, culture and character entirely separate and superior to the character of the Jews who just happened to live there.

This was a particular tragedy because many Jews at the time sincerely believed that, provided they took care to culturally assimilate and become good Europeans, secular European societies would be more accepting of them. That turned out to be terribly, catastrophically wrong. Even Jews who converted to Christianity (and who would have been accepted fully into medieval society) were not spared the horrors of anti-Semitism.

Just quoting to point out that you're responding to Seanchaidh, not me. :)

LetalisK:
Just quoting to point out that you're responding to Seanchaidh, not me. :)

I see. Making a new post so everything notifies correctly.

Seanchaidh:
"Started"? There has been antisemitism in that area since the time of Charlegmagne at least.

True if you count antisemitism as simply the dislike or ill treatment of Jews. I don't think that's technically accurate though. Perspecution of Jews in medieval and early modern history was generally based on religious justifications or myths about Jewish ritual practices, such as the allegation of deicide or claims regarding the blood libel or host desecration. Jews were mistreated and even killed, sometimes in fairly large numbers, but the violence against them was sporadic and disorganized and largely indistinct from the way protestants and Catholics treated each other during the reformation, or the way Muslims were treated in parts of Christendom where they lived (indeed, in Southern Europe persecution of Jews and Muslims was strongly interlinked). Christianity, historically, has no real theological basis for religious tolerance and as such until the early modern period has always been exceptionally brutal to religious minorities.

Anti-semitism was a racist ideology which largely replaced the religious justifications for hatred of Jews with "rational" scientific ones grounded in romantic nationalism and racial theory. Anti-semites didn't argue that Jews killed Jesus and were bad people, they argued that Jews didn't belong in Europe because they weren't Europeans, and by being in Europe they were effectively "polluting" the character of its nations and people, which had a history, culture and character entirely separate and superior to the character of the Jews who just happened to live there.

This was a particular tragedy because many Jews at the time sincerely believed that, provided they took care to culturally assimilate and become good Europeans, secular European societies would be more accepting of them. That turned out to be terribly, catastrophically wrong. Even Jews who converted to Christianity (and who would have been accepted fully into medieval society) were not spared the horrors of anti-Semitism.[/quote]

evilthecat:

Seanchaidh:
"Started"? There has been antisemitism in that area since the time of Charlegmagne at least.

True if you count antisemitism as simply the dislike or ill treatment of Jews. I don't think that's technically accurate though. Perspecution of Jews in medieval and early modern history was generally based on religious justifications or myths about Jewish ritual practices, such as the allegation of deicide or claims regarding the blood libel or host desecration. Jews were mistreated and even killed, sometimes in fairly large numbers, but the violence against them was sporadic and disorganized and largely indistinct from the way protestants and Catholics treated each other during the reformation, or the way Muslims were treated in parts of Christendom where they lived (indeed, in Southern Europe persecution of Jews and Muslims was strongly interlinked). Christianity, historically, has no real theological basis for religious tolerance and as such until the early modern period has always been exceptionally brutal to religious minorities.

Anti-semitism was a racist ideology which largely replaced the religious justifications for hatred of Jews with "rational" scientific ones grounded in romantic nationalism and racial theory. Anti-semites didn't argue that Jews killed Jesus and were bad people, they argued that Jews didn't belong in Europe because they weren't Europeans, and by being in Europe they were effectively "polluting" the character of its nations and people, which had a history, culture and character entirely separate and superior to the character of the Jews who just happened to live there.

This was a particular tragedy because many Jews at the time sincerely believed that, provided they took care to culturally assimilate and become good Europeans, secular European societies would be more accepting of them. That turned out to be terribly, catastrophically wrong. Even Jews who converted to Christianity (and who would have been accepted fully into medieval society) were not spared the horrors of anti-Semitism.

This is all a bit too neat. Antisemitic racial theories added to more than replaced previous ideas; one clear constant is hatred tied to usury. But in any event, what you're describing is what happens when many people believe a lot of the same nonsense. Nationalism and patriotism are both possible without racist bullshit.

evilthecat:

LetalisK:
Just quoting to point out that you're responding to Seanchaidh, not me. :)

I see. Making a new post so everything notifies correctly.

Seanchaidh:
"Started"? There has been antisemitism in that area since the time of Charlegmagne at least.

True if you count antisemitism as simply the dislike or ill treatment of Jews. I don't think that's technically accurate though. Perspecution of Jews in medieval and early modern history was generally based on religious justifications or myths about Jewish ritual practices, such as the allegation of deicide or claims regarding the blood libel or host desecration. Jews were mistreated and even killed, sometimes in fairly large numbers, but the violence against them was sporadic and disorganized and largely indistinct from the way protestants and Catholics treated each other during the reformation, or the way Muslims were treated in parts of Christendom where they lived (indeed, in Southern Europe persecution of Jews and Muslims was strongly interlinked). Christianity, historically, has no real theological basis for religious tolerance and as such until the early modern period has always been exceptionally brutal to religious minorities.

Anti-semitism was a racist ideology which largely replaced the religious justifications for hatred of Jews with "rational" scientific ones grounded in romantic nationalism and racial theory. Anti-semites didn't argue that Jews killed Jesus and were bad people, they argued that Jews didn't belong in Europe because they weren't Europeans, and by being in Europe they were effectively "polluting" the character of its nations and people, which had a history, culture and character entirely separate and superior to the character of the Jews who just happened to live there.

This was a particular tragedy because many Jews at the time sincerely believed that, provided they took care to culturally assimilate and become good Europeans, secular European societies would be more accepting of them. That turned out to be terribly, catastrophically wrong. Even Jews who converted to Christianity (and who would have been accepted fully into medieval society) were not spared the horrors of anti-Semitism.

Ooooh talking anti-semitism, let me join (:

You are correct in that pre modern anti semitism switched versions from religeous justification to a social/ideological/racial one, AKA all jews are- "traitors to their countries"/"money grabbers against communism"/"communists against democracy"/"lesser race" (with modern version being anti-zionism masking anti-semitism, but that's getting off topic). But are wrong in it being sporadic and unorganized as there are plenty examples like the crusades, the inquisition and the russian noble house causing pogroms to divert attention from their debauchary, yes, the wording changed, but the end result is the same "something is wrong and jews (or other monorities) are to blame rather than the goverment/aristocracy". Regardless it all falls in the end to anti semitism (though linguistically muslims are also semites, but again, off topic).

Like I said in another thread, some jews were heavily towards fascism and communism as those ideologies promised equal opportunities only to both become very anti semitic and caused a good justification to hating jews beyond race. At least now we have the delicious irony of europe under the strain of immigrants who does not wish to assimilate.

Anyway getting on topic, patriotism, like religion or any identity shared through people has the power to bring a community together and make people better themselves but for every "us" there are "them" and people can take advantage of that.

It's an identity I suppose, the same way that you 'belong' to a village, tribe, people or religion, it can be the same of a country. It's a tool with it's good and bad.

Positive aspects? I suppose that people who trust the system and their fellow citizens more may be less willing to be corrupt, may pay their taxes and be better members of their community, since they feel more invested in their society. That may overlap more with general civic duty and being a good person however, and we all know of the negatives of patriotism.

To add to what is said above, the sad thing is that, Jewish immigration from Western Europe to Israel is now at it's highest with the recent attacks against them by recent immigrants/refugees. Minorities have also been often used as scapegoats, due to the sad unifying property of common hatred.

Maybe unifying concepts are good when they inspire love for your fellow men, but not when they encourage violence against the "other"? That could go for a village, tribe, people or religion as a country.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked