Patriotism is an odd sort of thing, and I suppose its greatest mystery to me is how some people view it as an inherently good thing. "Being patriotic" is presented as one of those things that we all ought to be, but what is its value? Seriously.
I am speaking to this from an American point of view, so if it does not match the experiences or practices of any other country, look past it. When I turned 18 years of age, I had to register with the Selective Service, and I remember being told that it was my "patriotic duty" to register. Surely, I am not the only one who has a problem with this.
What makes it my duty? Is it that I had the occasion to be born in the United States? If so, I fail to see that as a reason for my compliance as I had no voice in determining my place of birth. I have read the "if you don't like it, leave it" sentiment, but to say that I ought to leave the US implies that I can leave the US. I have moved across state lines and found that to be an expensive process, and I can only imagine that moving across national lines must be even more expensive. With leaving "it" no longer an "ought," one in my position would be left to be unpatriotic, a seemingly unenviable label.
To tack on loyalty to a state as one of the aspects of patriotism adds to its level of oddness. Should I be considered disloyal if I do something that negatively affects the US? I have never declared my loyalty to the US, so if my loyalty is assumed, I am not disloyal if I do not submit to the assumption. I find it humorous actually when a new "traitor" is discovered, because I see in that person a man who never considered himself loyal to the US to begin with. I do not see how he can be a traitor if he is loyal to that to which he is dedicated. Perhaps, nationality means nothing to him, and he is instead loyal to an ideal.
I have decided that the labeling of "patriots," "traitors", "heroes," and "terrorists" is a meaningless exercise that governments rely upon to bolster themselves. Back in 2001, when the men hijacked the planes and crashed them into buildings here, I remember being shocked at the large number of people calling these men cowards. I am not a coward, and I do not know if I possess the courage to do what they did. They were, in my mind, extremely loyal and courageous.
I am under the impression that the term "patriot" should be universal, and if a man is patriotic to his country, he is a patriot to all who speak of him regardless of their country. A loyal man is loyal despite him being loyal to something you disagree with; he is still loyal. A traitor is an unusual label because it would require a person to go against himself, and in that sense, it seems that being a traitor is some form of mental illness. A hero is one who acts according to his loyalty, his conviction, and if it applies to him, his patriotism instead of being someone who agrees with you.
These terms are so mismatched and overused that they truly seem to be without any real meaning. Anyone got any light to shed on this?
I am speaking to this from an American point of view, so if it does not match the experiences or practices of any other country, look past it. When I turned 18 years of age, I had to register with the Selective Service, and I remember being told that it was my "patriotic duty" to register. Surely, I am not the only one who has a problem with this.
What makes it my duty? Is it that I had the occasion to be born in the United States? If so, I fail to see that as a reason for my compliance as I had no voice in determining my place of birth. I have read the "if you don't like it, leave it" sentiment, but to say that I ought to leave the US implies that I can leave the US. I have moved across state lines and found that to be an expensive process, and I can only imagine that moving across national lines must be even more expensive. With leaving "it" no longer an "ought," one in my position would be left to be unpatriotic, a seemingly unenviable label.
To tack on loyalty to a state as one of the aspects of patriotism adds to its level of oddness. Should I be considered disloyal if I do something that negatively affects the US? I have never declared my loyalty to the US, so if my loyalty is assumed, I am not disloyal if I do not submit to the assumption. I find it humorous actually when a new "traitor" is discovered, because I see in that person a man who never considered himself loyal to the US to begin with. I do not see how he can be a traitor if he is loyal to that to which he is dedicated. Perhaps, nationality means nothing to him, and he is instead loyal to an ideal.
I have decided that the labeling of "patriots," "traitors", "heroes," and "terrorists" is a meaningless exercise that governments rely upon to bolster themselves. Back in 2001, when the men hijacked the planes and crashed them into buildings here, I remember being shocked at the large number of people calling these men cowards. I am not a coward, and I do not know if I possess the courage to do what they did. They were, in my mind, extremely loyal and courageous.
I am under the impression that the term "patriot" should be universal, and if a man is patriotic to his country, he is a patriot to all who speak of him regardless of their country. A loyal man is loyal despite him being loyal to something you disagree with; he is still loyal. A traitor is an unusual label because it would require a person to go against himself, and in that sense, it seems that being a traitor is some form of mental illness. A hero is one who acts according to his loyalty, his conviction, and if it applies to him, his patriotism instead of being someone who agrees with you.
These terms are so mismatched and overused that they truly seem to be without any real meaning. Anyone got any light to shed on this?
