Patriotism

I find a number of problems with this as a justification for patriotism.  First, what is Mr. Nistorescu saying at the end--that Amercians behaved this way because of patriotism?  Patriotism is loyalty to one's country--it doesn't matter which country or what the country stands for.  Mr. Nistorescu is saying that American unity did not come from "Their land? Their history?"--that would be patriotism.  It came from support for a common ideal, freedom.

If conversely we want to say that Americans were unified by loyalty to country in the aftermath of 9/11 and we celebrate the positive things done as a result of that loyalty, then what are we to say about the soldiers and citizens of Nazi Germany and their support for their country.  That would also is patriotism--even if we don't like what that country was doing or what it stood for.  In fact, it seems to me that patriotism is strongest in countries that are doing questionable things because it makes loyalty to country, and not to a moral/ethical standard, of the highest value.

I find other problems with some of the assumptions of the "Ode":

1) "Only freedom can work such miracles." If you've read reports of the way in which the Chinese people acted during and after the recent earthquake, I think you'll see the problem I have with that statement.  Unless we are assuming that the Chinese have the same level of freedom as people in the U.S.

2) Why should the response to such a tragedy be to unify us by National affiliation?  Yes, I realize the attack was directed at the U.S. but should objections to it be divided up in some way by Nationality?  Shouldn't everyone in the world rally against such an attack?  Shouldn't we in the U.S. react with the same horror and outreach when an attack happens in another country like England or Spain?

3) What happened with the patriotic element in the response to 9/11?  The kind of political tactic in which applying the words patriotic and unpatriotic became a way to push through questionable security measures and a questionable war.  Not unity but divisevness--both in our own country, and (as opposed to the immediate reaction to 9/11) around the world.

Yes, you hit the nail on the head.

I think "freedom" is a loose term that can be defined and interpreted in different ways, so if this man associates patriotism with freedom (which is very common), he is doing so under the notion that patriotism and thus freedom is not a governing tool in the US. This was written shortly after the 9/11 attack (a year after I think), and while the commentary captures the spirit of what America desires to stand for, if this would be written, say today, the "Ode" would be riddled with contradictions.

I think a lot of the misperceptions of patriotism is often expressed in the media, or any questionable place one chooses to read or listen to the news. The fact that Bush declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq, claiming that "If you're not with us, you're against us", he created a political climate that in the extreme, is accusing Americans of national betrayal. He paints a clear message of patriotism, and by subjective association, freedom, being abused in the form of a governing tool.

Additionally, I think this sort of misperception makes it increasingly complicated for individuals to question their assertions of patriotism in its true form - whether it has only one meaning, double meanings, etc. History tells us that patriotism is a selfless act, but the problem rises when people believe they owe allegiance to only their country as opposed to a universal allegiance. Why is that? Because doing so would no longer be an act of patriotism?

I think the reason that Ode is a hit among Americans is because many claim that their patriotism is based on freedom. But, in doing so, what is that subconsciously implying? That freedom is unique only to Americans?

First - though I'll agree that freedom is a "loose term" that is defined in many different ways and thus can have different applications... (There are 17 definitions given on Dictionary.com )- it does not then follow that every person's interpretation of that term "fits" with what that word actually defines. 

I actually think that to associate patriotism with freedom is a somewhat of a misrepresentation of the definitions of both of those terms.
Briefly -

Freedom is an ideal, a philosophy - every definition given implictly or explicitly implies "without constraint" or subjection

Patriotism is more narrowly defined
devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.
This is also an ideal or philosophy, however, the patriotic person's choices are subject and centralized/constrained by the nation that the patriot supports.

I actually didn't see anywhere in "The Ode" where I felt that patriotism was being equated to freedom.  There were patriotic acts being described, sure... but it was not suggestive to me that these acts were being associated as being the cause for "freedom" itself.

And really... I think it would be common pretty pretty much only in the United States to subjectively connect freedom to patriotism.

I think that is because when our nation was created it was around the central ideal of freedom itself.  Most countries cannot claim that.
America ascribed to be a nation of "political or national independence" in both the world stage as a nation... but also on down to the individual.
As a country with laws, "of the people, by the people, for the people" - America attempted to be the nation that allowed each of us to be have political or national independence - even from our own government itself.  I'm perhaps not as politically schooled enough to know this for sure - but it seems to me that no other nation has ever attempted to do that.

Today this legacy is being used as a tool to confound and manipulate public sentiment.  Our past is painted into this romantic ideal - known and hailed the world over - and then with our idealized status use our pomp and circumstance to justify actions that are distinctly contrary to the ideal America once ascribed to.  We've replaced freedom with our want for security and control while trying to maintain the same polished image because of the status that it gives us.

So yes, this sort of misperception has made it increasingly complicated for particularly American individuals to question their assertions of patriotism in its true form - but only for those not being watchful.  Whether you know it from a history lesson - or a consideration made in attempting to clarify a term and its definition when attempting to understand what is going on around you... it's not too difficult to see.  America has strayed from our "romantic past".  Ask yourselves - Do you know what freedom is?  Is that really what is being offered to us?

To glorify the nation without considering its present state of affairs is reckless at best and most decidly "Un-American" in the original sense of the term.

     Please remember where this guy is from.  His country was occupied by the USSR for more than forty years until the fall of the Iron Curtain.  In the time frame between the fall and the events of 9/11, his country was not the most stable economically.  I would say that he scarcely understood the concept of freedom, let alone the freedom we have.  Perhaps today he would write a much different Ode. 

     It's fun to be a critic, I suppose.  Maybe it's okay sometimes to see  things at face value.  I can appreciate what this man is trying to grasp. 

#3 Son

Well, I actually wasn't being critical of the Ode - please don't get me wrong.  I was chiming in on the usage of the words "patriotic" and "freedom" respectfully.  From there I guess I just went on my little rant about America Past and Present.

I actually think I do appreciate this man's perspective.  Perhaps it's because of the hopeful and postive things this guy picked up on that just wants me to try all the harder to aspire toward the ideal.

For whatever it's worth, I could understand what you were trying to say even if it maybe came across as... awkward?

Patriotism can be a frustrating topic because people get twisted around on how to apply it.

For instance, I am personally opposed to a ban on (US) flag burning. Why? Because I believe that one of the things that flag stands for is a dissenter's right to burn it. I believe banning that practice does more damage to the ideal of the flag than burning it does. I'd also be one of the guys that turned a blind eye when the guy doing the burning got a knuckle sandwich, and I'd also suffer from a strange but horrible memory lapse about the whole thing if the cops showed up and asked me about it, but still I think he's got the right to do it. Is that an unpatriotic stance? Some people think it is. I do not.

Sometimes we get twisted up on phrases like "my country, right or wrong." Well, it is my country pretty much no matter what. I was born here and I've lived my whole life here, so how could it not be my country? I don't want anything bad to happen to it, for self-preservation purposes if no other. But, I don't think it is actually possible for America to be wrong, and not on any philosophical or blind-support basis, either. It's just because "America" is a big country filled with a lot of people who do lots of things. I don't support the activities of convicted American criminals, would that make me unpatriotic? I didn't support the idea of trotting over to Iraq and starting drama either, and I have been called unpatriotic for that. Why? Am I not patriotic because I didn't support the Americans who wanted to go or am I not patriotic because I did support the Americans that did not want to go?

I think that patriotism is first and foremost a support of the ideals of your country, even when it doesn't appear to be exemplifying them at any given moment. Secondarily, I think it's a "nobody hits my brother but me" mentality. I'll criticize my government all day and I've called for the resignation or removal from office of several elected and unelected officials, but if any other country or group tries to come in here and remove any of them by physical force, then I'll be among the first to volunteer for the resistance force.

Flag Controversy

Tenn. teen battles school's Confederate flag ban

I meant to get back to this...  and just wanted to say I really do appreciate that you took the time to mention that you understood what I was trying to say.  I'm not sure if I have more ... awkward? ...days than most, but even so it's nice to have a translator around for the "monkey spake" impaired.

Very well spoken points on patriotism.  I have a similar perspective on things... though I'm not the "brother hitting" type in some senses of the sentiment.  The question of the use of physical force is always a tricky topic.

Patriotism is a tricky thing.  I like to treat it like I do ones eternal salvation.  I hold steadfast to the quote, "Judge not, lest ye be judged by that same measure."  Who am I really to make that call.  

#3 Son

Wow.  I'm finding that comparison more complex than I anticipated.  I like that Bible quote - and liberally apply it to all manner and aspect of my life. But what I'm realizing later in life here... is that even the way I read and understand that passage is not the same understanding as someone else reads it.  I've been fascinated with communication, linguistics, and perspective/framing recently and am long past the point where I think when people say the same words they mean the same thing.

Heh... I actually just meant to chime in and say "me too" here... seriously.  Mebbe I shouldn't have had that banana for breakfast... I dunno...

But just to be sure I'm on the same page as everyone else here (not just you, 3rd son ... I'm not trying to be critical here) -
In the context of the Bible as a whole when I read the "Judge not, lest ye be judged" quote - to me that is not a cue to throw out judgement as a whole.  I think the point of the quote is to illuminate the fact that you can't really know what is going on inside of someone else and decide a motive for what they are doing and saying with 100% accuracy.  "The matter is between them and God - or their country, as it were".  It also serves the purpose of redirecting outer judgement to self reflection as some sort of measure to ensure that any judgement you DO make is not rash, but fair and well thought out. (Because conversely you CAN with 100% accuracy know your own motives and so self reflection is much more productive.) 

Second ... socially - we have to define things in order to communicate.  No man - or woman is an island.  Having a standard general definition of patriotism or salvation is not the same as judging the details of a person's individual actions and making a judgement about their entire character or eternal soul.
 
So this quote can apply both to another person's salvation or patriotism from the standpoint that the perception of such things is subjective. 
I do think the main point of the Bible quote is that there is a limit to how far subjective judgement should be allowed to go.  If someone believes they are saved or patriotic and you doubt that - how on earth would you prove then wrong?  You have no authority over this matter ... and *why* should you worry about that when you should be working out your own salvation "with fear and trembling"? ...  the case of patriotism is defined by the law of the land.  In America we determine this by determining when someone has crossed a line of infringement upon another person's rights.

Though I would say you CAN and sometimes maybe should speculate as to whether another person's acts do indeed fall into the general definition of "salvation" or even "patriotism" in certain contexts.  I believe to be true to what I think the Bible says about such matters - this should be done with the intent to help a person... and in a "judge the sin, not the sinner" frame of mind.  Also - to be clear about the definition helps to keep the ideal true - expecially when there are people out there claiming to have a specific belief system but acting in a manner opposite to the original definition.

While it's true - sometimes definitions of a word may change, even the subjective changing nature of language does have its limits.  For instance - I know of people who thought that the twin towers tragedy was "patriotic" in a sense of justice being done because perhaps they take a similar bead that I do on "America Past and Present" and instead use an indignant attitude in a rage to blame and control others, rather than to change themselves.  I do not share their opinion or their life strategy.

In the end - if there is a squabble over what is true or "right vs. wrong", there is an extent where it is "none of your business" really - because seriously, what would you know?  ... and don't you have better things to do with your time?  However, if the 'line of infringement', so to speak,  is crossed - a higher authority should be deferred to.  In the case of salvation (since this is a theistic matter) - whatever "God" a person serves is the authority.  In the case of patriotism - by definition "the country" you serve is the final judge.  What's interesting about the latter is that in America we are part of that voice and much like the Biblical example will be called upon to judge weighty matters.

Oy.  Rambilicious.  Sorry guys!

You know, your "ramblings" always represent a stroke of genius.

Heh.  I'm not sure what to say... that's incredibly kind of you to say.

The part that most people always leave out of the quote is "by that same measure".  If I judge someone harshly, I will be judged harshly.  This is not throwing out all judgment, but restraining harsh  judgement.   

I think we are on the same page...I'm just a simple kind of guy who states things at face value. 

On a side note, just so you don't think I'm being high and mighty, I have recently visited Bastogne where the Battle of the Bulge was fought.  After going through the museum and standing at the memorial, don't think that I didn't want to go back to the good old USA and shake the heck out of some hippie lawyer that is using his or her law degree to re-route our core values into something that is far removed from what the original founders believed.  Now that is a harsh judgement.  Until now, it was a judgement that I kept to myself.  When I get back to the US, I will not be shaking any hippies nor will I even bring it up.  I will never bring it up, because I remember the road to Basra and quite a few other things that we have done in the name of Freedom and Patriotsm where an equal or greater measure of judgement can fall on me. 

#3 Son

You're right in that for a lot of people the quote rarely goes beyond the first verse.

I grabbed this from a random site which conveniently included translation.

Matthew 1 thru 5 says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged [do not judge others if you do not want to be judged by others; everyone will be judged by God]. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again [if you judge others, they will judge you by the same measures]. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye [how can you judge someone when you are guilty of the sin yourself]? Thou hypocrite [this is the audience in the context; a hypocrite is one who is not living what he is preaching], first cast out the beam out of thine own eye [FIRST judge yourself and get your own life cleaned up]; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye [THEN after you get your life straight, you will be able to discern clearly and you are commanded to help clean your brother’s eye!]."

Yes, you're right; that was another assumption there I thought--that patriotism=loving freedom (for Americans) as if we have it and others don't.

I don't think I do see patriotism historically as selfless.  I suppose it can be looked at in that way as far as putting country above self.  But as that original quotation implies--is it not a kind of "group-self"--putting one's own country above others?

I think if you are talking about historically (or even in the present) being willing to die for one's country--again to me that isn't in itself a good thing.  It depends on what the country stands for--I mean isn't present day terrorism based largely on people being willing to die for their country or their group?

Right, selfless in the act of putting one's own country above self. But that's a good point - putting ones country above others. I think that's the argument, because people are going to have a different point of view when it comes to which acts are considered patriotic. I mean, are true, admirable acts of patriotism selfless in that the selfless feeling inspires one to be patriotic? Perhaps the more admirable patriotic acts are deemed selfless, and thus justifiable. Is there a distinction between an action being considered unpatriotic and an action being considered bad patriotism, for lack of a better word?

Well, I agree dying for ones country isn't a good thing. Hmm... I need to think more on the present-day terrorism... considering the religious conflict.

As you peer deeply into this chasm, you'll find that the roots of terrorism have far more to do with ethnicity and related politics than anything else. At the core, the groups we commonly identify as terrorists primarily hate the Jews because they're Jews claiming Arab soil, not because they aren't Muslim. By extension, they hate anyone that supports the Jews. The religious rhetoric I hear from these people is in many ways remarkably similar to the sort of drum-beating that made people more willing to participate in the Crusades. They are able to gain influence over young individuals using religious fervor as a tool, but it's all toward the goal of reclaiming control of what is currently Israeli soil, and for some of the groups, destruction of the Jewish people as well. If America and the EU were to turn their collective backs to Israel and allow it to be overrun, you'd hear a lot less anti-U.S. vitriol from these groups.

Interestingly enough, many Christian eschatological views feel that such an event is prophesied. They believe that Israel will be left vulnerable to an attack, a seemingly unstoppable attack will subsequently be launched, and that attack will be miraculously turned away. That event will mark the start of Daniel's 70th week. Of course, many of these same views often hold that the reinstitution of Israel as a sovereign nation marked the beginning of the "generation" in Matthew 24:34. The normally accepted length of a generation in Judaism is 40 years so, no matter what year you accept as the start year ('47, '48, or '49), this interpretation is highly unlikely. Granted there are plenty of people who were alive in '47 that are still alive today, there aren't that many people who understood what was going on back in '47 that are still alive today, so it's fairly safe to say that generation has passed. I'm a preterist and I read that passage as written, so I have a different view of what "this generation" and "these things" mean from that passage, although that is a discussion for a different thread. However, even as a preterist, I have to admit that the world stage is becoming more and more set toward the futurist interpretations of the prophecies.