Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A simple question folks.

I was born and bred in Britain. Brought up in a certain way, conforming to certain stereotypes. And yet, I can't say I'm terribly patriotic. Post education, all I've done is bust a nut and pay my taxes, and seemingly received precious little in return from the Government. Hell, even when I was homeless the Council refused to help out, as apparently having made the aforementioned mistake of being an otherwise upstanding member of society, I wasn't a particularly high priority. Not whilst dolescum and teenage mothers remain socially irresponsible.

And yet there is the past. Predecessors fought wars for my country, and indeed died for it. I often hear 'if it wasn't for 'X' you'd be speaking German'. Quite possibly, but then if it wasn't for 'X' I wouldn't know the difference, and more than likely be *exactly* as I am now. I respect the sacrifice others made, but I don't feel any need to really revere them. But having said that, don't get me wrong. Despite largely pacifistic intent, if the UK was threatened and eventually invaded, I'd fight for mine. But I wouldn't do so in a foreign theatre. I don't see the point.

So seeing as my Government does precisely sod all for me, barring exploiting my hard working nature, why exactly should I kiss my governments arse?

Nationalism (which is what the issue is) is a social engineering tool to gain support (read: man-power) for tasks.
It allows a organization (read: Nation) to instill a sense of us-vs-them in a population by creating a some-what arbitrary, idealized rule-set (that can be changed when needed) to enforced a form of false community in a population that has little reason to empathize with each other or work together.
It has it's greatest power of populations who's sense of community has already been destroyed, for this reason this method has little effect on communities that have tribal or a quasi-tribal structure. Examples would be gangs (with exception of those based out of mimicking a nationalistic movement), 'counter-cultural' sub-cultures, actual tribes that have maintain their identity, gypsies, etc..

--- so to answer your question:
{idealized view warning}
No you shouldn't kiss the arse of you governing body.
You should "kiss the arse" of those who would be willing to help and support you through the rough and vice-versa.

Belphegor wrote:Nationalism (which is what the issue is) is a social engineering tool to gain support (read: man-power) for tasks.
It allows a organization (read: Nation) to instill a sense of us-vs-them in a population by creating a some-what arbitrary, idealized rule-set (that can be changed when needed) to enforced a form of false community in a population that has little reason to empathize with each other or work together.
It has it's greatest power of populations who's sense of community has already been destroyed, for this reason this method has little effect on communities that have tribal or a quasi-tribal structure. Examples would be gangs (with exception of those based out of mimicking a nationalistic movement), 'counter-cultural' sub-cultures, actual tribes that have maintain their identity, gypsies, etc..

Took the words right out of my mouth.

true, true

Kiss your government's bum, ha that's funny. You don't do that because you have the freedom to not kiss it and to criticize it, that's what should be done.

Also, being patriotic doesn't mean you support your government it means you support the ideals of your country. Sometimes the government forgets that its also supposed to follow those same ideals and becomes a self important amalgamation of assholery.

Also, america is the best, we rule, we're awesome is nationalism. Now if we came over to england and beat you until you agreed, that is jingoism.

I would say that belphagor's response is a bit negative though, in fact its almost saying that nationalism is a weapon, not a tool, but a weapon.

Well we got a very un-nuanced view of Nationalism but not much about patriotism. You can be patriotic without being nationalistic. Patriotism is not another word for government. One can despise their government and still feel patriotic. For example many Americans don't much care for the government but still consider themselves patriotic.

Patriotism can be difficult to nail down because it can mean different things to different people. In general it can mean a love of country, but there is a plethora of ideals that can encompass. One might like the ideals embodied by their country (even if they don't live up to them), feel a sense of belonging to their community, think well of their legal system, or, indeed, like their government.

Whether there's much point in patriotism or nationalism or whatever, I still love my country. I honestly feel that it is the best place to live in the world and I have no desire to leave it.

Belphegor wrote:Nationalism (which is what the issue is) is a social engineering tool to gain support (read: man-power) for tasks.
It allows a organization (read: Nation) to instill a sense of us-vs-them in a population by creating a some-what arbitrary, idealized rule-set (that can be changed when needed) to enforced a form of false community in a population that has little reason to empathize with each other or work together.
It has it's greatest power of populations who's sense of community has already been destroyed, for this reason this method has little effect on communities that have tribal or a quasi-tribal structure. Examples would be gangs (with exception of those based out of mimicking a nationalistic movement), 'counter-cultural' sub-cultures, actual tribes that have maintain their identity, gypsies, etc..

--- so to answer your question:
{idealized view warning}
No you shouldn't kiss the arse of you governing body.
You should "kiss the arse" of those who would be willing to help and support you through the rough and vice-versa.

Pretty much where I sit too as far as nationalism.

As far as patriotism. I really couldn't give a toss about what the United Kingdom is or is not until it starts to concern myself, my family or friends. They come first. I have no time for this stupid idea that I am supposed to care more for someone 500 miles away from me in Kent than someone 100 miles away in Ireland. What's worse is that people often define you based on your nation. "we saved your asses in WWII" I wasn't in WWII. "You caused all the trouble in Israel" Never been there. Why should I be held to account for the actions of those a generation before me, or those of a government I never voted for? And also what's with the pride thing? It doesn't appear too big of a problem with Britons at least where I have lived but some people have this duppy idea that they have superiority over you based on what someone in their nation has done. Valuing themselves based on the achievements of those they have never met, simply because they were born in the same country. Sometimes even 3000 miles away. Just because someone in your country invented the paperclip, conquered India, discovered gravity doesn't mean you can wear it on your sleeve like a trophy, you had nothing to do with it.

In response to Ahtman:
I ended up focusing on Nationalism since it doesn't seem like you can be Patriotic without a National identity.
That national identity that is shared between peoples of the same county that have no contact with each other needs to be given to them be a third party (their national government).
Also the Mr Mystery's original statement sounds to me more of an issue with Nationalist slanting (since the complaints were control based), so I felt it more appropriate to comment on the topic that was intoned.

In response to halonachos:
My response is a bit negative. I think the tool of Nationalism is pretty underhanded and is founded on manipulating damaged communities for the benefit of the few.
Patriotism is a personal feeling towards one's nation. It can be self directed and completely based on one's own personal experience.
Nationalism is more an application of propaganda (not trying to drop conversion killing words, it's applicable for this subject) to shape the way a population's Patriotism manifests in action.

While I still find your analysis overly simplistic I do agree that there needs to be a basic sense of unity in a nation state for thier to be a country. We also need to remember that (while maybe not in some cases) the government isn't some shadow beasts from another planet ruling over people but is made up of the people in a country. If people did not come together in such a way there would not be country in the first place. The government is the country giving itself a sense of unity, however threadbare it may be.

Ahtman wrote:Well we got a very un-nuanced view of Nationalism but not much about patriotism. You can be patriotic without being nationalistic. Patriotism is not another word for government. One can despise their government and still feel patriotic. For example many Americans don't much care for the government but still consider themselves patriotic.

Patriotism can be difficult to nail down because it can mean different things to different people. In general it can mean a love of country, but there is a plethora of ideals that can encompass. One might like the ideals embodied by their country (even if they don't live up to them), feel a sense of belonging to their community, think well of their legal system, or, indeed, like their government.

I have to agree with this. Especially the last paragraph. I lack all of those emotional attachments to my homeland. My last atomic-thin line of patriotism is for the Men's National Hockey Team and the Olympics. Other than that, it's just another place on the globe.

In response to Ahtman:
Paragraph by paragraph discussions on a forum need to be keep it simple to maintain a thread of communication. I wasn't looking to write an article.
It seems that you feel I've left something particularly important out. Did I brain-fart a point? What relevant point or points did I miss?

I agree completely that governmental structures are made of people of that nation and are not "shadow beasts". If they were not people that country how would they be part of that governing body? It is also important to note that while the a governing body is made up of individuals of a country, it does not indicate that the general population has the same amount of direct control to dictate governmental policy, resources or power over the country's population.

I don't really feel the government is a country giving itself a sense of unity.
The ideal purpose of a government should be (in my view) to manage community resources, not to exert control over or manage it's population's personal lives or beliefs.

Mr Mystery wrote:
And yet there is the past. Predecessors fought wars for my country, and indeed died for it. I often hear 'if it wasn't for 'X' you'd be speaking German'. Quite possibly, but then if it wasn't for 'X' I wouldn't know the difference, and more than likely be *exactly* as I am now.

Well, given the degree to which culture, language, and history impact the various mental characteristics that make a person who he is, its probably more accurate to say that, if it wasn't for X, you wouldn't exist.

Not that such a thing necessarily matters, as you correct to state that you wouldn't know the difference in any way that you don't already; eg. if 'you' were a German subject people would still be talking about how you should thank the heroes of the Fatherland for preserving your Aryan heritage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Belphegor wrote:
The ideal purpose of a government should be (in my view) to manage community resources, not to exert control over or manage it's population's personal lives or beliefs.

In practice, those are very nearly the same thing. When you allocate resources to one project instead of another you are effectively managing the beliefs of future generations, given that they will be accustomed to a set of norms predicated on your management choices.

There's also the bit about what you should do with people whose personal lives and beliefs are directed towards destroying the nation/government/country; definitely can't let them do about running amok.

Having a flag, or national bird, doesn't really constitute a government managing the personal lives of it's citizens. A British citizen recognizing the Union Flag doesn't mean they love their country or or that they hate it, but that it is a symbol of their collective identity, regardless of who is in charge at the time or what governmental structure is in place.

The level of direct control over a government is also not tied to the basic concept of patriotism. A person can be patriotic whether they have absolutely no say or if they have a direct democracy.

I suppose the answer to the question that OP asks in the title is thus: it is as useful or as useless as you want it to be.

+1 to what whatwhat said. Exactly my opinion. I don't feel particularly connected to my homecountry Germany - it's a great place to live and I like it there, but I see no reason to wave a German flag around anywhere. And you wouldn't believe how often we get Hitler and the Nazis shoved up our noses when talking to people from other countries. I'm 22, I didn't invade Poland. Someone else 60 years before did. Actually, maybe my grandfather did, which is actually a bit unsettling...but that's another point why I guess your average German isn't really the flag-waving "Hurra Germany!" kinda guy.

In Response to Dogma: — in respect to community management
I agree completely about the balance between managing resources and the management of personal lives.

I lacked concise language to express:
'A governing body should manage resources of a population for the good of the community and individual at large with empathy and consideration for the minority without infringing on the freedoms, beliefs or personal lives of said population. Erring on the side of maintaining those freedoms and personal beliefs even when they conflict with the efficiency of the management of state resources, and only curbing the actions of individuals when the actions of those individuals would prevent members of community from exercising their personal beliefs and freedoms or the ability of future generations to be able to form or exercise their beliefs or freedoms.'

I'm sure you could knock out all the spaces and consonants and make it a word in German, but is there an English word for that concept?

there are so many other things to be proud of than so called achievments of your fatherland...
i´m not proud of it or would probably be rather offended if someone would want me to be a patriot.

i will fight for my family and my friends and some parts of my neighbourhood. these are the persons i´m proud of. having done my fair share of time in the army and heard what idocy some of the men there thougt was how patriotism should be, i feel privileged to have my own train of thoughts...
that said i think that some people that are eagerly waving their flag use this activity to get around the idea of independent thought as their capability for this might not be exsistent...

hope i didn´insult someone...

I guess to me love of country and sense of service to it were things I was raised with and have become a part of who I am and what I try to instill in my kids.

I've seen and been part of things my country has done to help others in need. I've watched as my fellow countrymen have endured hardships they did not have to in order to make someone else's life a little better.

I think the basic principles my country was founded on are worth living up to and defending, and helping others to enjoy as well.

I'm sure there are many of you who can't/won't understand that, or will point out countless examples of where my country has screwed the pooch to show how 'evil' we are. I got that.

As Oscar Wilde said....

"Patriotism is the virtue of the proper annoying cu*ts"

Suppose the EU passed a directive that every child had to be taught Esperanto.

In an international relations sense, a nation is a group of people who have something tieing them together, be it ethnicity, or a belief in liberty or whatever. Nationalism is the support and belief that your nation should have a state to govern it, and grant it sovereignty from the rest of the word. A nation-state is a highly specific entity that compromises both a nation AND a state. So yes, I am an American nationalist, mainly because I believe that the American nation has a right to self government, and I have solidarity with other members of that nation in a belief in freedom, liberty, apple pie....did I say freedom? That's what makes me a nationalist, and it's probably neither good or bad.

But OP, you have to acknowledge that even if the state hasn't done anything for you personally, and it hasn't personally written out a check with your name on it to help you out, you have to admit that the state does one major thing for you that probably justifies every tax you ever paid, even if you never get a penny back. Without the state's monopoly on force, we'd probably end up in a Hobbesian state of nature, where no ones rights are respected. The strongest thrive, and the weak die. The fact that the state organizes itself domestically to keep some semblance of order is justification enough for most taxes.

Belphegor wrote:In Response to Dogma: — in respect to community management
I agree completely about the balance between managing resources and the management of personal lives.

I lacked concise language to express:
'A governing body should manage resources of a population for the good of the community and individual at large with empathy and consideration for the minority without infringing on the freedoms, beliefs or personal lives of said population. Erring on the side of maintaining those freedoms and personal beliefs even when they conflict with the efficiency of the management of state resources, and only curbing the actions of individuals when the actions of those individuals would prevent members of community from exercising their personal beliefs and freedoms or the ability of future generations to be able to form or exercise their beliefs or freedoms.'

I'm sure you could knock out all the spaces and consonants and make it a word in German, but is there an English word for that concept?

Liberalism.

Zing!

This pic seemed sort of applicable:
*self edited to avoid invoking the wrath of the mods*

In before that image gets taken down due to profanity.

That image is nonsense.

Led Zeppelin should be stricken from the European side, as Rock was invented in the US.

dogma wrote:

Belphegor wrote:In Response to Dogma: — in respect to community management
I agree completely about the balance between managing resources and the management of personal lives.

I lacked concise language to express:
'A governing body should manage resources of a population for the good of the community and individual at large with empathy and consideration for the minority without infringing on the freedoms, beliefs or personal lives of said population. Erring on the side of maintaining those freedoms and personal beliefs even when they conflict with the efficiency of the management of state resources, and only curbing the actions of individuals when the actions of those individuals would prevent members of community from exercising their personal beliefs and freedoms or the ability of future generations to be able to form or exercise their beliefs or freedoms.'

I'm sure you could knock out all the spaces and consonants and make it a word in German, but is there an English word for that concept?

Liberalism.

Not quite.

The bolded part goes a bit of a way in describing liberalism, but the rest is counter to it. Liberalism doesn't give a damn about your personal freedoms. It only cares when someone gets butthurt about something stupid, then it outlaws that so the rest of the populace gets screwed over. Look at Transfat.

He's referring to classical Liberalism, not Democrat 'liberal'.

Mr Mystery wrote:So seeing as my Government does precisely sod all for me, barring exploiting my hard working nature, why exactly should I kiss my governments arse?

So.....by doing what, exactly, will you be kissing said governments arse? You were refused housing. Yes, I understand that, but you have not said what you refuse to do to kiss your governments arse.

Patriotism is a choice in my opinion. Living in South Africa there is still the "everything was better before 1994". Which is stupid. It took me to go and visit my family in Killkenny for me to see how wonderful my country is. With all its problems, I am still proud to call my self a South African, even though I love being referred to as an Irish git by my friends.

So in my mind, you choose to love your country, you love its identity. Its part of you as you are part of it.