Pride In One's Country

November 11, 2003 6:54 AM

Are You, Deep Down, Secretly, Between-You-And-Me, Proud Of Your Country? Even if you're not Canadian? Because a lot of people in the world, no matter how badly run their country might be, seem to be just that. Isn't it weird, though - and, well, stupid - to be proud of something that just happened to happen to us and that we've done nothing to deserve, whether for good or for bad? A more telling question that occurs is: what nationality would you choose to be, if you couldn't be the one you are? Here's the menu.
posted by MiguelCardoso (105 comments total)

I've never understood why people are "proud to be British". We're a pretty horrible lot.
posted by Orange Goblin at 7:04 AM on November 11, 2003

It makes perfect sense, from an evolutionary/memetic point of view - those countries that did not foster a strong enough will to preserve the country soon found themselves parts of other countries, or split up into smaller countries.

And I'd choose to be Danish, Australian or possibly Japanese.

[Great post!]
posted by spazzm at 7:10 AM on November 11, 2003

Well, your country is a bit like your parents. You can bitch and moan and disparage them all you want but if somone else cracks wise about them, you're ready to kick ass. It's a similar situation with my country, I guess.

We haven't come close to living out the ideals this country is supposed to be about, but at least they're the right ideals. We have some assholes here, but for the most part I think our hearts are in the right place, but we're just befuddled. And despite it all, if I got to choose I'd still choose to be an American. Culturally speaking, we're pretty damned cool. We gave the world rock and roll, Harley Davidson, jazz, I Love Lucy, Jack Kerouac and other stuff too numerous to mention.

My mom and her parents and millions of people like them immigrated and continue to immigrate here for a reason. This is still the best country on earth. If it wasn't people wouldn't care so much about saving it from the idiots looking after it right now.
posted by jonmc at 7:11 AM on November 11, 2003

My choice if I had one
posted by EmoChild at 7:12 AM on November 11, 2003

speak for yourself orange goblin.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:15 AM on November 11, 2003

Your're right, Miguel, it doesn't make much sense to be proud of one's country. And I don't even know if it's a good thing - sure, it might make one less likely to immigrate, but does such pride make one more likely to make positive contributions to one's country? Or does it make one less willing to admit that something that's wrong needs to change?

I remember a political science exam I took in university in which I had to prove or disprove that nationalism was a pernicious trait. I argued that it could be good or bad depending on the country's particular culture and the way it was used by a country's leader, and cited examples of both. The professor cited it to the class as a excellent answer, but I didn't know if I'd really answered it.

And I don't want to be anything other than Canadian, ever.
posted by orange swan at 7:16 AM on November 11, 2003

Isn't it weird, though - and, well, stupid - to be proud of something that just happened to happen to us and that we've done nothing to deserve, whether for good or for bad?
We might have done nothing to deserve (or be tainted with) our nationality, but it's not stupid at all. For instance, my greatgrandparents got themselves here to the US to make a better life, and people continue to do so even today. We're inheritors of that belief.

I am proud, even though I disagree with most of what my country does (or doesn't do), especially in the world-at-large. I'm more optimistic (maybe foolishly so), more driven, and more self-reliant than people I've met from other countries--probably due to a lack of a social safety net, or free college, or national healthcare, etc. I think those of us from the US grow up differently, knowing we have to make something of ourselves, and take care of ourselves--even though i wish we had those safety nets, and free college and healthcare, etc. (We also don't have that "tall poppy syndrome" that Australia and Britain have.) I guess I'd choose to be Spanish or Dutch (but i haven't been to that whole list of countries yet, so we'll see).

and on preview--what jonmc said : >
posted by amberglow at 7:19 AM on November 11, 2003

As to whether nationalism is a "pernicious trait," I think there's a difference between blind jingoism and pride. The former can frankly be dangerous; the latter I think is necessary if you're going to have people contributing to the betterment and all that.

I think that one of the many reasons that immigration is healthy for a country is that you have this influx of people who both care enough about it to make an effort to live there, and can perhaps provide a more objective view of the things that need to be fixed.
posted by transient at 7:31 AM on November 11, 2003

I've never understood why people are "proud to be British". We're a pretty horrible lot.

I've certainly never felt proud to be British, ever. The front page of the Daily Mail reminds me why. If we ditched the monarchy and became a little more progressive and a little less conservative I might reconsider, but I doubt it.

Having said that I think patriotism is a fairly bizarre trait regardless of how wonderful your country is; I'd much rather define myself by what I think than where I live, where I was born or what language I speak. I'm proud to be Welsh when they win the rugby, though. And I think I'd probably be Swedish, or possibly Norwegian.
posted by zygoticmynci at 7:39 AM on November 11, 2003

Hey, I'm proud to be an american, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I proudly stand up, next to you, and defend her still today. Because you know what? There ain't no doubt I love this place.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:40 AM on November 11, 2003

Here in the midwest, it really is a bit odd. People will claim to be devout or born again Christians, and then openly, vociferously and forecfully proclaim their pride in the good 'ol US of A. Problem with that is: Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. Food for thought.
posted by jester69 at 7:44 AM on November 11, 2003

And I don't want to be anything other than Canadian, ever.

ditto
posted by t r a c y at 7:50 AM on November 11, 2003

psst, Miguel... what about this for your next FPP?...


posted by matteo at 7:53 AM on November 11, 2003

Nice one jonmc.
But you do realise Oor-stray-leea is the best.
That's why we have to beat back those pesky refugees
in leaky boats.Yes all fourteen of them.We're full.
posted by johnny7 at 7:55 AM on November 11, 2003

> And I don't want to be anything other than Canadian, ever.

>> ditto

Moi aussi!
posted by zarah at 7:58 AM on November 11, 2003

Well, I never in my life thought Canadians were such cheats! ;)

Let me rephrase the question, specifically for Canadians: if by choosing to remain Canadian you brought about the physical destruction of Canada and the extermination of every single other Canadian and, by temporarily choosing to be another nationality, you could save them and see them prosper, what other nationality would you reluctantly choose?

Me, I'd choose to be Italian or Irish, btw.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:09 AM on November 11, 2003

I'll quite happily accept citizenship from any nation that will let me keep any others I might have, and won't put any particularly onerous burdens on me.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:13 AM on November 11, 2003

> And I don't want to be anything other than Canadian, ever.

>> ditto

Moi aussi!

Moi trois!

I normally think pride in one's country is silly, but I've never felt more patriotic than I do now, when I'm not living in Canada. Of course, this is likely because I'm living in the States, where one is rather overwhelmed with flag-waving (I saw a Canadian flag on a truck yesterday and had a little "yay, Canada!" moment). If I had to pick another, I'd pick British, since I'm eligible for citizenship there anyway.
posted by biscotti at 8:13 AM on November 11, 2003

Australia would be cool. Or New Zealand.

Jester69, you have a point. I do love my country, but I have a higher allegiance.
posted by konolia at 8:13 AM on November 11, 2003

hmm royal family , i remember the queens jubillee and people having street parties (even in scotland )and i remember people being proud to be something
around the time of the falklands and charles and dianas wedding, which was probably a highpoint of national pride.
As far as being proud to be Scottish goes,it increases the further you are from the country. unfortunately scotland still exists somewhere between william wallace and bonnie prince charlie.
I was watching the mtv awards come to leith last week and i thought that without irvine welsh writing trainspotting, that would never have happened.
Being Scottish seems to be an inner feeling that you're not quite good enough and that its some other bastards fault.
I wouldnt mind being american , it seems to be that you can be really positive about your own culture over there.
You know that scene between marlon brando and rod steiger in on the waterfront ? that sums up the english/scottish relationship for me.
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:17 AM on November 11, 2003

Italian! the best wine in the world; dark-haired dark-eyed women with fire; a glorious, ancient history; romakimmy; the sharpest tailoring on the planet; and fishing ass-deep in the ocean at Cinqueterre. And a language that is just pure, unadulterated honey in the ear.
posted by UncleFes at 8:21 AM on November 11, 2003

"I do love my country, but I have a higher allegiance."

said the Arab-American average Muhammad, before being relocated to a cage in Guantanamo
posted by matteo at 8:25 AM on November 11, 2003

Italian!.....a language that is just pure, unadulterated honey in the ear.

You've never been yelled at by my relatives, have you fes?
posted by jonmc at 8:25 AM on November 11, 2003

Even their curses sound like poetry, my friend :)
posted by UncleFes at 8:29 AM on November 11, 2003

Decidedly proud to be an American. Either in spite of, or because of, its flaws. And I don't see how that can be characterized as "stupid." Of course one doesn't choose the country in which he or she is born. But I'm often proud of my family, too, and I didn't choose them, either.

If I had to choose, I'd probably pick some warm Caribbean country. Like Barbados.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:31 AM on November 11, 2003

I just heard an Economist reporter interviewed this morning on NPR say that 91 percent of Americans consider themselves patriotic, according to a recent poll.

I guess I'm a 9-percenter.
posted by me3dia at 8:34 AM on November 11, 2003

Oh, and I don't think I'd choose to be from anywhere in particular -- I'm not too concerned about nationality in the grand scheme of things.
posted by me3dia at 8:36 AM on November 11, 2003

Here in the midwest, it really is a bit odd. People will claim to be devout or born again Christians, and then openly, vociferously and forecfully proclaim their pride in the good 'ol US of A. Problem with that is: Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. Food for thought.

I have the fortune to see stuff like this a lot. I think part of the justification for it stems from the thought that this is God's chosen country with God's chosen leaders and doing God's work. It's a Pride in God first, Pride in Country second, but the Pride in Country is seen as almost (or essentially) a religous duty.

And Gun-to-my-head-have-to-choose-something, (Tom Jones notwithstanding), I'd have to go Welsh.
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:45 AM on November 11, 2003

I am proud, even though I disagree with most of what my country does (or doesn't do)

That's irrational.

That public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a different, but not less forcible nature; honour and religion. —Edward Gibbons, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Pride goeth before a fall.
posted by rushmc at 8:48 AM on November 11, 2003

I'm not sure I'm proud, exactly, to be an American, but neither am I ashamed. It is what I am. And America has, in the past and yes, even today, stood for a lot of what is good and honorable in this world. I believe that it will do so again.

Sensible people the world over know that where one comes from does not automatically invest one with superior - or inferior - qualities. And perhaps that is one thing that I *am* proud to be an American for - the underlying precept of our culture that our diversity is a source of strength, not a detraction, and the idea (practiced unevenly, but there all the same) that the individual succeeds in his or her own strengths, his or her own character and integrity, regardless of where they come from.
posted by UncleFes at 8:50 AM on November 11, 2003

That's irrational.

Rationality is overrated. And boring. and causes constipation.
posted by jonmc at 8:51 AM on November 11, 2003

I remember mailing this comment to a friend a while ago (I'm a brit living in the US):

In a way it sums up how I feel about being an ex-pat. I live here, but I'm not from here, so I can pick and choose what aspects of the US I'm proud of (quality beef, great weather) and those that are definitely the local people's thing (gun ownership, comedy governors).

The thing is that I've found myself doing this with the UK. I'm proud of the relatively racially integrated communities, the music, sports events that don't take a whole day to watch etc.etc. But I like the place less and less. When I go back it's great to see family and all my old mates, but London itself is ugly and England's cold. The food's ropey too. I'm not sure how I'll feel when I'm deeper into the immigration process.

I guess I meant california when I said the US, and the gun ownership comment is mainly because armed people scare me.
posted by Flat Feet Pete at 8:52 AM on November 11, 2003

Let me rephrase the question, specifically for Canadians

oh miguel, you nut. ok fine, since i have a green card for working in the states and also hold an irish passport i'd temporarily choose ireland... if it was the only way for me to save canada and all other canadians from certain destruction. otherwise i'm not budging.
posted by t r a c y at 8:56 AM on November 11, 2003

What are countries but imaginary lines painted on our beautiful planet?

I'm proud to be an Earthling.
posted by LouReedsSon at 8:58 AM on November 11, 2003

That's irrational.
Being rational really is boring--and un-american too. ; >
A certain amount of cognitive dissidence is necessary i think, especially these days. My pride has much more to do with the qualities I have as a result of being brought up here, and not elsewhere. Fes put it nicely.
posted by amberglow at 9:09 AM on November 11, 2003

If I had a gun to my head where would I rather live? Hmm, I don't know. No place I've ever been to. Maybe Ireland or New Zealand - they are the places I most want to visit.

I remember reading Cathy Young's memoir about growing up in Moscow. She wrote that there was LOADS of complaining about Communism, the lack of incentives, the shortages of everything. At first she made the mistake of thinking it was safe to criticize the government to such people, to say that they ought to have a different system. People would react with horror and shock and disapproval and say, "What! Why, this is the best place in the world to live." She soon realized that the discontent was usually only superficial, not systemic, and after that kept such dangerous thoughts mostly to herself.

So often we love what we're used to.
posted by orange swan at 9:10 AM on November 11, 2003

I haven't been very proud of my country since Pim Fortuyn managed to introduce xenophobia as something normal over here. Now we've got a conservative government and a prime minister we call Harry Potter.

Although I feel and think I'm Dutch, I was born in (English) South Africa, but nothing much there to be proud of either.

I would love to live in Australia, it's bloody beautiful. But what johnny7 said. Not that it would stop me living there if I got the chance.

I can't think of a country I would be actually proud of.
posted by ginz at 9:11 AM on November 11, 2003

A certain amount of cognitive dissidence is necessary i think

"cognitive dissidence." I like that. It would be a great name for a hardcore band.
posted by jonmc at 9:12 AM on November 11, 2003

I think spazzm was heading in the right direction - "It makes perfect sense, from an evolutionary/mimetic point of view - those countries that did not foster a strong enough will to preserve the country soon found themselves parts of other countries" - but let me modify that a bit.

I do think that these nationalistic, gesselschaft - ish inclinations are instinctively driven. But - spazzm - most of the human instinctual repertoire was laid down long, long before the advent of nation-states and - since then - a strong case can be made that evolutionary pressures on humans have mostly ceased. Perhaps certain nations which have homogenous and relatively genetically similar populations might have higher levels of instinctively driven aggression and nationalistic tendencies - but that would be horrendously difficult to determine empirically and I can't think, offhand, of any nations which would fit that bill. One problem with this view is the fact that strong nationalism - and it's correlate, wars, might effect the "national genome" but not in the sort of ways you are suggesting. For example: I've heard that the Napoleonic Wars had the net effect of lowering the height of the average French male by an inch or two. The reason? Simple - the tallest men were the most sought after as soldiers (and as conscripts). And there was a pretty high mortality rate - over the long haul - in the Grande Armee. This tale would make a lot of sense, and I'd suppose that along with a slight decline in average height, Frenchmen would also be less aggressive as a consequence of Napoleon's attempts to conquer Europe. So that would explain the "surrender monkey" part, if not the "cheese eating" bit, right? - Well that's a nice little tale I've just spun, but I'm actually quite dubious that Napoleon's wars really dented the French population much, and I've been unable to dig up any research at all which refers to this specific war/height connection. It's probably just anecdotal.

But the time period to examine for the evolution of those human tribal and xenophobic instincts underlying nationalism is the deep human (and proto-human, hominid) past. It's generally agreed on by paleontologists that humans evolved in small bands, tribal groupings of no more than a few hundred individuals in size (and usually smaller). Individuals in these bands would have a high degree of genetic relatedness - and hence, a la the "selfish gene" principle emphasized by Dawkins and others, they would have an inclination to stick together and share a hatred - and fear - of outsiders. Going even farther back, ethologists have observed in the more social primates - chimps for example - hatred and fear of 'outsider' chimps, whether as individuals, or in adjacent bands; chimp bands have been observed carrying out apparently systematic, low grade campaigns of attrition which gradually reduce neighboring bands by picking off a few individuals at a time. And yet - strangely, when female chimps first go into estrus, they tend to wander outside of their band's territorial perimeter. They roam, and this leads to mating with "enemy" chimps. This, it's been suggested, serves as a genetic corrective to possible problems arising from too much inbreeding, over too long a period. But - getting back to nationalism - the instinctual tendencies we see in humans today, expressed as nationalistic sentiments - love of country, suspicion and hatred of people of other nationalities, and so on - all have their counterparts in the behavior of the social, tribal primates we are most directly related to.
posted by troutfishing at 9:14 AM on November 11, 2003

People will claim to be devout or born again Christians, and then openly, vociferously and forecfully proclaim their pride in the good 'ol US of A. Problem with that is: Pride is one of the seven deadly sins.

The seven deadly sins are a Catholic, not Christian, concept.
posted by kindall at 9:18 AM on November 11, 2003

I like to think that if America were involved some relatively black-and-white conflict - like, say, fighting Nazis - I'd be as patriotic as the next guy over. And I did feel that way in the aftermath of September 11 - it was a sort of shared experience that prompted you to think about the best aspects of your country, which had come under attack.

And as jonmc pointed out, the ideals that this country is supposed to stand for are indeed worth getting misty over, and fighting for.

But there does seem to be a sense amongst some that being American means you never have to say you're sorry, that anything you choose to do is automatically justified, that the country's foreign policy is not only in the best interest of America but the world as well, and if the world chooses not to see them it's not a matter of Americans being hubristic but of the world being fools.

Which is to say that there's a pretty huge gap between what we stand for and what we're doing.

Oh, and Canada works for me. Great beer.
posted by kgasmart at 9:23 AM on November 11, 2003

I want to be. I so want to be.

I miss that tingle, that almost tear that resulted from the national anthem at ball games, etc. But I just don't get it anymore. Sadly, very sadly.

On September 11 a few years ago, I remember watching events unfold and thinking that someone's gonna get an ass kicking. I may have even called for it along with everyone else. That day. Then, I didn't. I never in a million years though, would have thought that the current administration would be so rotten, so corrupt, so...so...bad. I obviously didn't vote for Bush, but I didn't really hate him. Just thought he was inept and probably not very good for the country. But now. Jesus, what a fuck. What a horrible, awful leader he and his cronies are.

I'm sure someday I can be proud of my country. This isn't to say that I don't love it. I appreciate the fact that I can (somewhat) still say that I don't like what my leaders are doing. But, I fear for our country. I fear for our populace being driven like lemmings toward the cliff.

It's Norway for me.
posted by damnitkage at 9:24 AM on November 11, 2003

Me, I'd choose to be Italian or Irish, btw

my dad was irish and my mom is italian so i don't have to choose, plus i still get to live in canada ;-)
posted by t r a c y at 9:25 AM on November 11, 2003

If I couldn't be Canadian, I'd choose to be Québécois!
posted by teg at 9:33 AM on November 11, 2003

my dad was irish and my mom is italian...

Me too! Greetings, fellow Gaelic & Garlic!
posted by jonmc at 9:35 AM on November 11, 2003

I'd be Canadian. I'm halfway there - Canadian wife, immigrant visa...all we need is to move there. Preferably Vancouver, but Toronto would do at a push. It just seems so civilized - cars slow down for you, joggers say hello, great music (Broken Social Scene completely rule), gay marriage, stoner paradise, and so on. Not sure I'd want to live in Uranium City, though.
posted by rikabel at 10:01 AM on November 11, 2003

Every time I lust after another nationality I eventually tire of the fantasy and end up back where I started. It is a interesting mind game to play "what if I was Italian.." and we all engage when we see movies or have friends. In the end though, I choose "Afghanistan" because it is always first on the drop-down form list which makes life easy.
posted by stbalbach at 10:01 AM on November 11, 2003

On reflection, I'd say that I'm quite proud of being British, which is perhaps interesting because my parents are HK Chinese. I'm not romantic about my nationality and I'm constantly ashamed of the things that Britain has done in the past and continues to do now, but I'm still proud of our accomplishments; our explorers, our scientists, our artists and composers and architects and visionaries and dreamers.

Two things reminded me of this recently. The first was a book called Science: A History, which while being a self-professed western look at science, showed how enormously Britain contributed to our understanding of the world. The second was seeing Ranulph Fiennes and Mike Stroud run seven marathons in seven days.

I'm proud of the idea of Britain... not the Daily Mail Britain. I know we can do better.
posted by adrianhon at 10:06 AM on November 11, 2003

UncleFes, you really know how to charm the knickers off a girl.
posted by romakimmy at 10:22 AM on November 11, 2003

"The love of one's country is a splendid thing.
But why should love stop at the border? "--Pablo Casals

I'm with LouReedson, I have racial pride . . . the human race.
posted by ahimsakid at 10:26 AM on November 11, 2003

...gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors' eyes--a fresh, green breast of the new world. its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby's house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Nationalism springs from some reptilian neural nest in the amygdala.

An immigration to a deeper citizenship lies at hand.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:31 AM on November 11, 2003

I'm in awe of the land that stretches between our (U.S.) 2 coasts, and I'm proud of our constitution. I'm ashamed of our arrogance and wastefulness. My first allegiance is to the earth and man-kind.
posted by 2sheets at 10:34 AM on November 11, 2003

It's Sealand for me.

"Sealand was founded on the principle that any group of people dissatisfied with the oppressive laws and restrictions of existing nation states may declare independence in any place not claimed to be under the jurisdiction of another sovereign entity."

Tune in, turn on, drop out.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:39 AM on November 11, 2003

The grass is always greener on the other side of the Atlantic. I think Texans are boisterous, Americans are rude, and Terrans are wasteful. Despite this, I'm proud to be a boisterous Texan. Proud to be a rude American. Proud to be a wasteful Terran. I don't care if it's irrational. I'll also always root for the Sox over the Yankees, and the Cubs over the Marlins, until the day I die - and I don't even like baseball.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:42 AM on November 11, 2003

I like Chile, where I was born and currently live. I like the US, where I've lived a total of 7 years, especially the people who live there, but loathe much of its foreign policy of the last century or so. I like a ton of other places I've been, particularly Germany and Bolivia.

I find it hard to be proud of imaginary lines drawn on arbitrary 2-dimensional representations of the big muddy spheroid we inhabit. Or of colored cloth flapping in the wind. Or of young boys carrying weapons.

If it existed, I'd go for some sort of "international" or "world" citizenship, whatever the fark that would mean.
posted by signal at 10:43 AM on November 11, 2003

Rationality is overrated.

Perhaps, but it beats the alternative all to hell.

Rationality is boring.

Not if you do it right.

I believe that it will do so again.

I hope that is based on more than hoping.

the ideals that this country is supposed to stand for are indeed worth getting misty over, and fighting for

And to the degree that we do not represent and support these ideals, pride = hypocrisy. Keep in mind that we are judged by (and should judge) what is, not what once was or might have been.
posted by rushmc at 10:46 AM on November 11, 2003

Romakimmy, tu mi fai squagliare come neve al sole, mio angelo
posted by UncleFes at 10:47 AM on November 11, 2003

the instinctual tendencies we see in humans today, expressed as nationalistic sentiments - love of country, suspicion and hatred of people of other nationalities, and so on - all have their counterparts in the behavior of the social, tribal primates we are most directly related to.

certainly. the genetics of it is complicated and still very poorly understood. it makes good sense that animals from tribe x, mostly or entirely interrelated, are hostile to animals from tribe y, who carry fewer tribe x genes. this is a feature of the genes of tribe x self-selecting. but it is also a feature of the memes of tribe x self-selecting. which is more important in human affairs? often the memes, i think; the great wars have been ideological [for religion, political style, etc.], forcing unrelated tribes to cooperate in defense of their meme poo(l).

also, there is an excellent psychosocial basis for patriotism: individual x wishes to be popular [attract mates and friends and business contacts]. her positive attitude is a big plus. she wishes to advertise that she is satisfied with the status quo, that she is well-adjusted, that she is not deviational... patriotism is sort of like a smile, a sun-tan, a good haircut, a decent suit or dress, etc.

that's not to say that people simply pretend to be patriots in order to get ahead [although one reads parodies of this in literature about totalitarian states]. but i think one's reasoning processes are influenced by one's intuitive or unconscious self-improvement instincts.
posted by mitchel at 10:58 AM on November 11, 2003

Me, I'm probably the only Canuck in the country without a drop of nationalism. That said, what with Hong Kong being sucked up by the ChiComs again and the American government as nuts as it is, there's not really anywhere for a fellow to move that's any better for him.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 11:03 AM on November 11, 2003

Rationality is boring.

Not if you do it right.

The best things in life, like love, art, music, sex, creativity, have exactly zero to do with rationality. In fact, you could argue that what makes these things so thrilling is that they are beyond rationality, logic and intellect.

I mean you could rationalize all these things, by reducing emotion to endorphins, music to notation, creativity to cultural conditioning, but to do so is to suck all the life out of them if you ask me.
posted by jonmc at 11:05 AM on November 11, 2003

that's not to say that people simply pretend to be patriots in order to get ahead

They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings.
Steal a little and they throw you in jail,
Steal a lot and they make you king.

- Bob Dylan
posted by LouReedsSon at 11:07 AM on November 11, 2003

As another Canadian reluctantly choosing some other nationality . . . I can think of two:

1) British - shared language, shared history, my family traces its roots to a hillside near Aberdeen, so it just makes the most sense

2) Spanish - but only if I could live in Seville and effortlessly ooze poise and style like everyone else there, or live in Barcelona in a Gaudi apartment building (or at least on the same block as one)
posted by gompa at 11:29 AM on November 11, 2003

Me, I'm probably the only Canuck in the country without a drop of nationalism.

Actually, you're not alone Pseudoephedrine. I find many Canadians to be blindingly nationalistic. Usually, it's the same crowd who like to berate our neighbors to the south for being so patriotic.
posted by btwillig at 12:03 PM on November 11, 2003

You know, this is an argument I get into with my "citizen of the world" fellow travelers. When I say that I love my country, I love it in the same way that I love my family. I'm comfortable with my family and am familiar with it's needs, concerns and internal politics. I don't know what goes on in the Smith family, the Cosby family, the Singh family, the Martinez family. I know and love and am proud of my family as much because of its faults as in spite of them.

Likewise, I know what it is like to be and American citizen living in the Midwest. I know the politics, where and how to vote, the issues, the regulatory structure, and the unwritten rules of how to get along. How can I claim to be a citizen of the world while having a minimal understanding of what goes on in other cultures? I know what goes on here with an intimacy that allows me to make positive changes.

When I say that I love my family, or am proud of my family, that does not mean that I consider my family to be superior to the Smith, Cosby, Singh or Martinez families. My family has its skeletons, just as all families do. But I do feel a higher degree of responsibility to my family. When a family member had heart surgery, I felt obligated to spend a week driving a blind spouse to the hospital and nagging the patient to do her breathing exercises. I don't feel obligated to do the same for a random stranger down the street.

Likewise, as a United States citizen, I feel compelled to read the newspaper at least 3 times a week, vote in all elections (except for the time I was flat on my back after surgery, still felt bad about it though). I don't know the economics and politics of Ireland, Germany, Zimbabwe or India. I can't make decisions about how to run things over there. I suspect that a lot of "citizens of the world" are engaging in a bit of subconsious cultural imperialism. There is a lot to be learned by working on your local political context. We tend to forget this at our peril.

The pride I feel for my country is the same pride I feel for the desk I helped to build over the weekend. Or my first published paper, the gloves I knitted two years ago, or my very bad harmonica tunes. These things may not be perfect, but gawsh darn it, I put a lot of work into making them as good as I can make them. At least one of the big failures of the left is in ceeding patriotism to equate to jingoism.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:20 PM on November 11, 2003

The best things in life, like love, art, music, sex, creativity, have exactly zero to do with rationality.

Nonsense. Rationality is a component of each of those things. The continuum from rationality to madness does not require that you choose either pole for legitimacy. Nor does your choice prohibit you from also utilizing other tools in your toolbox (be it emotion, instinct, creativity, passion, etc.).
posted by rushmc at 12:26 PM on November 11, 2003

I'm proud of my country (New Zealand), in the same way that I'm proud of my family. This doesn't mean I don't greatly admire other countries, which are in various ways better than mine.

I totally agree with KirkJobSluder, in that pride in ones country is a spur to improve and preserve it, not something that blinds you to its faults.

"Proud" is a slippery word that spans healthy self-esteem and ridiculous egotism. It's not really a very useful question. I bet it translates terribly.

If I had to choose another nationality, I'm not sure. I like Australians. I've always got on well with Scandinavians of all kinds, even those mad bastard Finns. I know! Iceland! I think Iceland has its shit together - sign me up.

sgt.serenity, you surprise me. What happened to "If it's not Scottish, it's craaaaaaaaaaaaap!?"
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:09 PM on November 11, 2003

I wouldn't mind being Belgian, if only because they have great beer and comic books. And in the end, isn't that what really matters?
posted by interrobang at 1:53 PM on November 11, 2003

I just got back from there last night, interrobang--add good food (incl. frites) and good museums and architecture to the list : > oh, and gay marriage!
posted by amberglow at 2:29 PM on November 11, 2003

Well things can be really much more complicated as nations don't necessarily coincide with states. For instance, Gompa, Barcelona is the capital of Catalonia and a lot of people there don't consider themselves to be Spanish...
posted by blogenstock at 2:55 PM on November 11, 2003

Metafilter: the last refuge of a cardoso! after Samuel Johnson
posted by dash_slot- at 5:09 PM on November 11, 2003

Seems to be some confusion of patriotism with nationalistic pride. Nationalistic pride is being proud of one's country, and being proud to be a citizen of that country. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't even need to be justified, but it's not patriotism.

Patriotism involves the willingness to risk life and limb and fortune for a country -- not generally a set of lines on a map, but a system of government that supports and defends ideals that are worth fighting and dying for. Ideals like freedom, liberty, equality. By definition, if you're willing to die for something, you're focused on securing a better future - for your family, your relatives, your friends. In the US, the founders of this nation risked everything, and many died for their beliefs. It certainly wasn't nationalistic pride they died for.

Wave a flag, go to a parade, who cares? Nationalistic pride is a personal decision, much akin to family pride. How can you argue with it? The more substantive question is are you patriotic? Would you be willing to lay down your life, risk all your material possessions, stake your honor on the concepts and precepts espoused by your country of residence? I don't know but I have a feeling that the number of people who are truly patriotic is substantially less than those professing national pride.

Maybe it's because most of us haven't had to fight those battles, haven't had our freedoms or liberties challenged or threatened in our lifetimes. I know the passion and intensity of commitment around these issues is higher among my friends from other cultures who have experienced persecution or suffered under despotic regimes. I suspect for most of us it becomes one of those troubling questions, "if I were faced with this situation, would I...? ... could I?..." that in the end can never be resolved unless and until you face it.

All that said, Wales. No, Italy! Arrrggghhhhh!
posted by JParker at 6:42 PM on November 11, 2003

Your definitions seem very idiosyncratic, JParker.
posted by rushmc at 7:12 PM on November 11, 2003

Patriotism involves the willingness to risk life and limb and fortune for a country -- not generally a set of lines on a map, but a system of government that supports and defends ideals that are worth fighting and dying for. Ideals like freedom, liberty, equality.

Disagreement. Patriotism is also the willingness to risk life and limb and fortune for a system of government that oppresses and condemns, the willingness to invade your neighbors because they're untermenschen and you want their land, the willingness to stand up and defend the enslavement of others with force of arms.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:16 PM on November 11, 2003

what nationality would you choose to be, if you couldn't be the one you are?

Germany. They have lots of hot chicks there.

Hmm, gotta practice now. "Koennen Sie etwas langsamer sprechen? Ich bin Auslander! Ich bin Amerikaner!"
posted by moonbiter at 7:24 PM on November 11, 2003

I am Canadian. I love Canada.

At the same time, fuck Canada. Fuck the kind of archaic cro-magnon blood-soaked tribalism that is candycoated as 'pride' in our enlightened times.

And fuck everybody, while I'm at it! [/George Carlin]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:30 PM on November 11, 2003

"In fact, you could argue that what makes these things so thrilling is that they are beyond rationality, logic and intellect."

Everyone that despises logic, intellect and rationality should go live naked in the forest, scavenging for roots - because that's where we'd be if rationality, logic and intellect hadn't given us technology. (Technology isn't only computers, remember.)

And music has nothing to do with rationality, you say? What, you think brass is a naturally occurring metal? You think marshall amps grow on trees?
posted by spazzm at 7:46 PM on November 11, 2003

The seven deadly sins are a Catholic, not Christian, concept.
So, only the Catholics are opposed to pride, avarice, envy, anger, lust, gluttony and sloth? Good to know. I had always attributed the list to Christendom in general, specifically things that were prohibited throughot the bible, though perhaps the Catholics compiled the list.
posted by jester69 at 9:00 PM on November 11, 2003

Everyone that despises logic, intellect and rationality should go live naked in the forest, scavenging for roots - because that's where we'd be if rationality, logic and intellect hadn't given us technology. (Technology isn't only computers, remember.)

And music has nothing to do with rationality, you say? What, you think brass is a naturally occurring metal? You think marshall amps grow on trees?

Well, that depends on what one means by "logic, intellect and rationality." Frequently what is invoked by advocates and critics is Cartesian rationalism which elevated abstract symbolic logic above other forms of knowing. One of the primary weaknesses of rationalism is that it ignores tacit knowing or dismisses tacit knowing as irrational.

Cheerleaders for rationality ignore the fact that their own edifice has been proven to be impossible and unstable (by their own rules), while refusing to recognize alternative means of attacking problems. For example, human beings have a great ability for understanding gestalts, without being able to fully understand how that gestalt works. We can recognize human faces, from almost any angle and distorted as characature. This ability is highly reliable, and almost fool proof.

Sometimes, it is simpler and easier for everyone involved to just take the gestalt at face value, and use fuzzy pattern-matching rather than a logical, systematic breakdown into a theory. In fact, it is quite likely that such gestalts might be irreducably complex leaving us with only subjective comparison for understanding. It is a mistake to contrast rationality with madness. In fact, I would argue that very little of what we do on a day to day basis is rational. And yet, we live remarkably consistent and useful lives.

And, your examples are, well screwed up. Gathering requires a pretty hefty folk science, while the evolution of musical insturments has been driven less by a rational understanding of how they work (which even today eludes physicists) than by improvisation for a better gestalt sound.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:20 PM on November 11, 2003

What JParker said. Very cool. Actually there's been a lot of great sentiments in this thread.

Oh. And if I had to choose a place other than where I was born, I'd like to try being british. I like it cold and damp and foggy. However, I've never actually been there. Just love the idyllic descriptions and portrayals in the movies and books, so if I spent even six months there, I'd probably go stir crazy. Is it true you can't get ice in London? That'd just freak me out.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:47 PM on November 11, 2003

NYT Interviewer: Have you considered leaving the United States permanently?

Noam Chomsky: No. This is the best country in the world.

USA!! USA!!
posted by dgaicun at 11:36 PM on November 11, 2003

stavros, if it weren't for patriotic cro-magnons, you'd be talking neanderthal today - if you can call that talking. now go finish your mammoth.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:01 AM on November 12, 2003

Damn! Too late to the thread again, as usual.

I agree with jonmc; I am immensely proud of the ideals behind the USA (if not their slapdash execution), and feel very fortunate indeed to have been born here. I admire many other countries for many reasons, but I'm not sure I'd trade passports. Moreover, I don't like thinking of a country being "better" than another, and there's no way I could pick out one to be "the greatest country in the world."

I'd love to be Italian or Irish, though. (And no, I'm not just aping Migs on this one -- jonmc, for one, has heard me spout off about this before.)
posted by Vidiot at 12:43 AM on November 12, 2003

Could I just say, "Fuck Nationalism?" Would anyone mind?

Fuck Nationalism. Fuck it up it's flag-wearing, tribalistic, winnit-festooned arse.

Thankyou.
posted by Blue Stone at 12:50 AM on November 12, 2003

KirkJobSluder:
Of course, if you define 'logic, intellect and rationality" to be equal to Cartesian rationality, you'll get the answer you expect. Keep in mind that Descartes wasn't always very rational - his proof of God is basically just circular logic.

I'm not dissing face recognition or other innate human abilities, I'm just pointing out that the only alternative to rationality is, well, irrationality. While or innate abilities allow us to perform some neat feats (recognize faces, catch a ball in flight) they do not provide us with design pattern for electrical amplifiers, microwave ovens, spoons or any of the other myriad things that are the result of rational thinking.

I find it hard to visualize how marshall amps would have come into existence without rational thought - sure, they could have evolved trough a kind of trial and failure (which is also a rational process, of sorts) over centuries, but they didn't. Somewhere along the way Gustav Robert Kirchoff observed natural phenomena, experimented, thought rationally about it and laid down the laws that are still taught to all electrical engineers - even those that design the marshall amps.

Wether root-scavenging requires logic, rational thought and/or intellect I'll leave an open question. But if we would be unable to collect roots without rationality, doesn't that make it even more valuable?

"One of the primary weaknesses of rationalism is that it ignores tacit knowing or dismisses tacit knowing as irrational. "

Care to explain that one a little closer?

I still maintain that the only alternative we have to logic, reason, intellect and rationality is stupidity.
For that reason I agree with your statement "In fact, I would argue that very little of what we do on a day to day basis is rational." - most people live this way. We call them idiots.
posted by spazzm at 2:25 AM on November 12, 2003

troutfishing:
I agree that the evolutionary pressures on humans have eased considerably, if not ceased altogether - I also realized that I didn't formulate my meaning very well in the initial posting.
The point I was trying to get across is not that humans of different nations have different genetic traits, and therefore fail or succeed in maintaining the integrity of the nation. The point is that the nation as an idea has strength or weakness that determines wether it succeeds or fails. Those nation-ideas that did not contain in them that the nation-idea was something worth holding on to perished, while those that caused their subjects (those that believe in the idea to some degree) to be loyal succeeded.
In other words: Patriotism is an important survival tactic for nation-ideas. We see the same thing in religions - the largest religions today are mostly evangelical.
Nations are, after all, more than a patch of land with people living on them. Human genetics play no or little role in the birth and death of nations.

These are ideas I've obviously stolen from memetics, and I apologize in advance if I've botched some of them.
posted by spazzm at 2:38 AM on November 12, 2003

jonmc: 'This is still the best country on earth.'
I'd be interested to know where else you've been to make the comparison.

The reason I ask is that I've met a fair few USians who have said the same & have never left the US...& some of them have seen less of the US than I have. It just seems a bit bizarre...

With regard to the UK I think I have a similar view to the one Stavros has of Canada. I do like the humour, the land, a lot of the culture, the look of the place, the footie and a lot of the achievements but the puffed-up jingoism has to go. The Daily Mail-effect as some have already mentioned.

I'd find it too hard to make a choice if I had to choose as I see admirable qualities in so many other nations. In Europe the Swedes, Danes & Dutch in the north & the Portuguese (someone had to say it!), Spanish, French & Italians in the south. Farther afield? Thai or Indonesian. Maybe I'd choose New Zealand (altho' I'll have to wait until February to see for my self) or Sri Lanka (December)?

Last year I came to the heavy-hearted realization that I couldn't live in the US for too long at a stretch. There are many, many admirable things about it & its people but the money-worship, over-consumption & self-obsession grates just a bit too much. The way its politics are so polarized & its culture, altho' very broad, lacks depth don't help either. I just want somewhere that seems, as a whole, a bit cleverer.

Which brings me back to France. For the same reasons a lot of Americans [and Brits] seem to hate the French I love 'em. The appreciation of pleasure over work. The love of fine food, wine & living no matter how well off you are. The sense of community. The fact that intellectualism & thought have a place in society. Probably reasons why SO & I have pencilled in living in France (or possibly Spain) on the future 'To Do' list.

Then again, the Netherlands?..hmm...put me down as citizen of the world [puke] & ask again this time next year...
posted by i_cola at 3:18 AM on November 12, 2003

Another point: It seems to me that most of you are radically misusing the term, "pride." To be meaningful, pride must be based in responsibility, not mere affiliation; that is, if you've done something, or had a significant hand in it, then you can reasonably feel pride in it, whereas it is ridiculous to claim the right to feel pride in the accomplishments of others. I doubt many here have contributed enough toward the making or maintaining of this country what it is to truly feel pride in it. I think the word many of you are looking for to describe what you feel is "approval."

The dictionary says:

Pride–
1. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect;
2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association;

but I would argue that the last usage ("association") is by far the weakest and least meaningful.
posted by rushmc at 7:02 AM on November 12, 2003

jonmc: 'This is still the best country on earth.'

I'd be interested to know where else you've been to make the comparison.

Trying to find a way to state this that isn't snarky...let's just say that data (first-hand experience, in particular) is not widely considered a necessary criteria for wide-ranging opinions in the U.S.
posted by rushmc at 7:06 AM on November 12, 2003

Or anywhere else, rushmc. Or anywhere else.

(Stavros wins, by the way.)
posted by languagehat at 7:16 AM on November 12, 2003

To be meaningful, pride must be based in responsibility, not mere affiliation; that is, if you've done something, or had a significant hand in it, then you can reasonably feel pride in it, whereas it is ridiculous to claim the right to feel pride in the accomplishments of others.

Our very immersion and participation and life experiences in this country (or whatever country) count as doing something, and help make this country what it is--you don't have to be a founding father or Rosa Parks. We all make this country what it is, and change this country every day in all sorts of ways, by the simple living of our lives.
posted by amberglow at 7:22 AM on November 12, 2003

It seems to me that most of you are radically misusing the term, "pride."

but I would argue that the last usage ("association") is by far the weakest and least meaningful.

Aren't those two statements contradictory? It's still a usage, right? So the word is not, in fact, being "misused," (let alone "radically misused") as you claim. It may not be the "primary" usage, but obviously people can think of pride as including pride in the actions of a particular group (country, family, sports team) because one is a member of that group (sometimes, believe it or not, I'm "proud" of MetaFilter -- I may disagree with the vast majority of members, but there's no denying that the quality of discussion is high). Miguel's question was obviously referring to this usage, which is perfectly valid.

What has been misused, however, is the analogy to pride as one of the seven deadly sins. Obviously the concept there is the first usage -- pride in one's self.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:48 AM on November 12, 2003

spazzm: Of course, if you define 'logic, intellect and rationality" to be equal to Cartesian rationality, you'll get the answer you expect. Keep in mind that Descartes wasn't always very rational - his proof of God is basically just circular logic.

Nonsense. His argument is entirely rational. If you accept his starting assumptions, you are forced to conclude that god must exist. In fact, agnosticism, as part of the pragmatic turn in philosophy, realized that rationalism forces you to either conclude that god must exist or god can't exist through equally valid arguments. The point is because rationalism is divorced from practice that it can lead to all kinds of pointless conundrums and thought experiments.

I'm not dissing face recognition or other innate human abilities, I'm just pointing out that the only alternative to rationality is, well, irrationality. While or innate abilities allow us to perform some neat feats (recognize faces, catch a ball in flight) they do not provide us with design pattern for electrical amplifiers, microwave ovens, spoons or any of the other myriad things that are the result of rational thinking.

I would argue that it is a mixture of both. For example, amplifiers vary quite a bit in terms of sound and tone. What exactly about a vacum tube amp makes it "sound better" as a musical instrument accessory than a solid state amp? Although the basic schematics for electric guitars and amplifiers have traditionally been derived from physics, the precise combination of preferences to produce the desired sounds was based on the types of subjective patten matching you dismiss as useless in design. A similar thing happened with microwave ovens that languished in industry for years until some designer found the right combination of elements that made it into a household appliance.

As Edison said, invention is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation. I would be highly suprised if the Marshal amp did not develop out of some degree of systematic trial and error. In fact, one of the things I find amazing about this discussion is that working scientists that I know are well aware of the limitations of rationalism. Another weakness of rationalism is that it does not provide much of a framework for creating new knowledge.

I said: "One of the primary weaknesses of rationalism is that it ignores tacit knowing or dismisses tacit knowing as irrational. "

Simple, rationalism requires that any system to be explained must be analytically broken down into a nice set of symbolic relations. Tacit knowledge is what we know but cannot say. By the rationalist definition, tacit knowledge is irrational beccause it has not been expressed as a symbolic set of rules. (And this is ignoring the elephant in the bedroom that a complete set of symbolic rules is impossible to achieve for the moment.)

I still maintain that the only alternative we have to logic, reason, intellect and rationality is stupidity.

Of course you would. You are blind to any other option.

Would you argue that B. B. King is stupid for his performance of the blues as a felt experience, that can be explained only through metaphor? In fact, musical performance is an excellent example of a task that is both highly cognitive (and therefore not stupid) and highly irrational. You don't have time to think about the rules during a musical perfomance, instead, what happens is a form of irrational pattern-matching. Musicians attempt to create a sound that matches an internal vision of what the performace should sound like. This method is also used in sports psychology of visualizing ideal performance.

This is hardly "stupid". We use similar ways of gestalt thinking all the time with great success.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:21 AM on November 12, 2003

rushmc: Another point: It seems to me that most of you are radically misusing the term, "pride." To be meaningful, pride must be based in responsibility, not mere affiliation; that is, if you've done something, or had a significant hand in it, then you can reasonably feel pride in it, whereas it is ridiculous to claim the right to feel pride in the accomplishments of others. I doubt many here have contributed enough toward the making or maintaining of this country what it is to truly feel pride in it.

Bah. If I tell my sister that I'm proud of the work she does at a school for teens with mental illnesses, just about everyone who is not a dictionary-lawyer arguing for the sake of argument will understand what I mean.

The last sentence is just baffling. The only way it makes sense if one considers "country" to be the exclusive work of government empoyees, elected representatives, judges, and executives, rather than the sum social actions of all of its members.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:51 AM on November 12, 2003

"If you accept his starting assumptions, you are forced to conclude that god must exist."

And why, pray tell, should I accept Descartes' assumption?
Assumptions are not necessarily rational.

"[...] subjective patten matching you dismiss as useless in design."

I did not dismiss pattern matching as useless in design. I have merely pointed out that this human skill is not, by it self, enough.

I would also have to point out that knowledge that cannot be broken down into a set of symbolic relations is not knowledge - it may be wisdom, opinion, assumptions, prejudice or whatever but not knowledge. Knowledge must be based on facts and reasoning, observation and deduction.

Wether a certain kind of amp sounds "better" than another is entirely a matter of taste - and taste is not knowledge.

"Of course you would. You are blind to any other option."

You seem to deliberately miss my point: I am not claiming that things like intuition are stupid - I am claiming that rejecting rationality is stupid.
If you are going to be unpleasant, I can see no further point in continuing this debate.
posted by spazzm at 9:41 AM on November 12, 2003

spazzm: And why, pray tell, should I accept Descartes' assumption?
Assumptions are not necessarily rational.

Because, fundamentally, there is no way to deterimine which set of starting axioms are better than any others.

I did not dismiss pattern matching as useless in design. I have merely pointed out that this human skill is not, by it self, enough.

Nobody is arguing that it is enough. However, the existence of gestalt knowledge is a good indication that rationalism is not enough either. In fact, it would suggest that the two processes are complemetary rather than antagonistic (as cheerleaders for rationality would like to claim.)

I would also have to point out that knowledge that cannot be broken down into a set of symbolic relations is not knowledge - it may be wisdom, opinion, assumptions, prejudice or whatever but not knowledge. Knowledge must be based on facts and reasoning, observation and deduction.

Nonsense. The average human being can know approximately 200 faces. Basketball players know how to sink a basket from a huge number of locations on the court. Drivers of standard transmission cars know how to shift gears. All of the above are known without beaking them down into a set of symbolic relations.

Wether a certain kind of amp sounds "better" than another is entirely a matter of taste - and taste is not knowledge.

Nonsense. Designers of musical insturments (including amplifiers), chefs and musicians rely on quite a bit of tacit knowledge to influence their tastes. What you call "taste" is the abillity to compare a novel example with a database of hundreds, even thousands of prior examples. This is not rational (because it cannot be fully broken down onto a set of symbolic relations) but in the long run it is highly reliable and useful. In some cases even more reliable and useful than rational analysis.

Furthermore, it is necessary. A central problem with rationality is that it takes time. In order for something to be useful in real time, it must be converted into some form of tacit, and therefore irrational form of knowledge. We don't always have time to perform an analysis of force vectors every minute of our lives.

You seem to deliberately miss my point: I am not claiming that things like intuition are stupid - I am claiming that rejecting rationality is stupid.

No, you did claim that the alternatives to rationality are stupid (and therefore intuition is stupid, although we are not talking about intuition as such in this discussion.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:22 AM on November 12, 2003

We all make this country what it is, and change this country every day in all sorts of ways, by the simple living of our lives.

I think that's a tremendous overstatement, but there's probably a kernel of truth to it. However, I think most of the features of the U.S. that one could take pride in predate you and me, minimizing our miniscule contributions even further.

We all want to feel like we belong and contribute to something larger than ourselves, something good. This does not necessarily make it true.
posted by rushmc at 10:50 AM on November 12, 2003

If I tell my sister that I'm proud of the work she does at a school for teens with mental illnesses, just about everyone who is not a dictionary-lawyer arguing for the sake of argument will understand what I mean.

There is a distinction between being proud of something or someone and having pride in something or oneself.

I continue to maintain that the former usage is very weak and problematic.
posted by rushmc at 10:54 AM on November 12, 2003

mitchel, spazzm - memes ARE important. I completely agree. I was just using spazzm's comment as a bad excuse to go all pedantic.....wah wah wah, wah. Wah wah! Wah wah wah wah wah......

I think nationalism is a virus which has arisen and infected virtually all human cultures on earth (except for a few remaining hunter/gatherers who are rapidly being assimilated) through the medium of a continuous arms race which started somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 B.C. and which has raged unabated ever since and forced peoples everywhere to assemble into larger and larger grouping for defensive purposes - lest they be raped and pillaged and then raped and pillaged some more.

But I do love my country, God damn it! It's just the people in it that annoy me sometimes.
posted by troutfishing at 11:26 AM on November 12, 2003

Wellll, to save Canada I'd become Finnish; but only because of the rally community.
posted by Mitheral at 11:35 AM on November 12, 2003

Hey, I'm proud to be an american, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I proudly stand up, next to you, and defend her still today. Because you know what? There ain't no doubt I love this place.

Lee Greenwood, country & western singer, draft dodger
posted by jonp72 at 11:49 AM on November 12, 2003

However, I think most of the features of the U.S. that one could take pride in predate you and me, minimizing our miniscule contributions even further.
That's ok--miniscule is better than nothing...and we never know what total effect our little lives have, but we do know it does have an effect.
posted by amberglow at 11:51 AM on November 12, 2003

rushmc: I think that's a tremendous overstatement, but there's probably a kernel of truth to it. However, I think most of the features of the U.S. that one could take pride in predate you and me, minimizing our miniscule contributions even further.

Again, how are you defining country here? I suspect that when you say "country" you mean something quite different from what I mean. If country includes culture, then I don't think that our actions are miniscule, they are fundamental.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:15 PM on November 12, 2003

What has been misused, however, is the analogy to pride as one of the seven deadly sins. Obviously the concept there is the first usage -- pride in one's self.

I think you are wrong there. The virtue that corresponds to the sin of pride is Humility. It, to me, doesn't seem very humble to crow over how great ones country is. I think when one takes pride in ones country it becomes an extension of ones self. It is as if, by nature of the locale of ones birth, one asserts that they are better than the rest of the world not so blessed by fate and geography.

In any event, though my interpretation may not be the same as yours, I think it would be a mischaracterization to call it obviously wrong.
posted by jester69 at 1:01 PM on November 12, 2003

The best things in life, like love, art, music, sex, creativity, have exactly zero to do with rationality.

Do you play a musical instument, jon? I say baloney to that assertion--to do anything right, you have to know how. You learn how by paying attention and practicing, practicing, practicing. Love, art, music, sex, creativity all have to do with being awake at some point. You weren't born able to ride a bike. Love is not a hippie drum circle, is not a feeling--it's something you consciously do: it's work. So are all the rest.
posted by y2karl at 2:36 PM on November 12, 2003

If New England were a country... /daydream
posted by Dick Paris at 2:25 AM on November 13, 2003