Why are Americans so Patriotic?

[Helmholtz Watson]

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.

Ask that to the people who live there.

The islands were uninhabited when they were discovered, so it was fair game.

When soverignty came into dispute, they even let the islanders vote on who they wanted to be part of.

The British did many terrible things in their colonial days, but the Falklands was not one of them.

"Fair game"? Really? Sounds more like Imperialism to me. Why would a country that is 777.8 miles away from the Faroe Islands, need to go there? Honestly?

The Islands didn't belong to anyone, and that was pretty much the 'in thing' at the time. You know. Finding places.

I meant to type Falklands not Faroe Islands, my bad. Anyways, the whole issue should be between Argentina and the Falklands, England has no right to but in between the two places anymore than it does butting in between any issues Hong Kong has with Mainland China.

But the people want to be British. They voted to remain British.

I'm sure if they were under Argentinian rule for just as long, they would want to remain Argentinian. I think that vote has to do more with people not wanting to change.

It's like North Ireland, in that England is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Hong Kong could have voted to remain British, but that doesn't change the fact that it's part of (PRC)China.

 

[FFHAuthor]

American Patriotism is different from other nationalities, I feel it's due to the fact that American patriotism and American 'national loyalty' is entirely based upon loyalty to an idea, not a land or leader.

The US Military and Government swear their allegiance and loyalty to the Constitution, not to the President or Congress. We're the only nation in the world whose loyalty oath demands that our soldiers serve and protect an idea, not a land or leader. Even American Patriotism isn't based upon a charismatic leader or a national history or national culture. Germany, Russia, Britain, China, other major nations who have patriots trace that loyalty back to histories, lands, cutlures and shared experiences.

American Patriotism on the 'Left' and the 'Right' holds it's roots in views of the Constitution and what it represents, a common thread for everyone in this country. It's a paradigm shift that the rest of the world cannot comprehend too much. Millions of men and women vowing to die for an idea is far different from being loyal to the Queen, or loyal to Mother Russia, or what have you. We Americans simply view patriotism as different because it stems from a radically different root.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

I love my country and will always be proud of it. I find it sad when people don't care about the place they were born and raised. My country has its flaws but in all honesty which country doesn't? In essence i bleed red white and blue and will chant "USA" at any given moment.

Well said, sir.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.

Ask that to the people who live there.


The islands were uninhabited when they were discovered, so it was fair game.

When soverignty came into dispute, they even let the islanders vote on who they wanted to be part of.

The British did many terrible things in their colonial days, but the Falklands was not one of them.

"Fair game"? Really? Sounds more like Imperialism to me. Why would a country that is 777.8 miles away from the Faroe Islands, need to go there? Honestly?

The Islands didn't belong to anyone, and that was pretty much the 'in thing' at the time. You know. Finding places.

I meant to type Falklands not Faroe Islands, my bad. Anyways, the whole issue should be between Argentina and the Falklands, England has no right to but in between the two places anymore than it does butting in between any issues Hong Kong has with Mainland China.

The difference there is Hong Kong is no longer British where as the people of the Falklands are British citizens (by choice). I'd say protecting one's citizens from an invading force doesn't count as butting in.[/qu

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.

Ask that to the people who live there.

The islands were uninhabited when they were discovered, so it was fair game.

When soverignty came into dispute, they even let the islanders vote on who they wanted to be part of.

The British did many terrible things in their colonial days, but the Falklands was not one of them.

"Fair game"? Really? Sounds more like Imperialism to me. Why would a country that is 777.8 miles away from the Faroe Islands, need to go there? Honestly?

The Islands didn't belong to anyone, and that was pretty much the 'in thing' at the time. You know. Finding places.

I meant to type Falklands not Faroe Islands, my bad. Anyways, the whole issue should be between Argentina and the Falklands, England has no right to but in between the two places anymore than it does butting in between any issues Hong Kong has with Mainland China.

The difference there is Hong Kong is no longer British where as the people of the Falklands are British citizens (by choice). I'd say protecting one's citizens from an invading force doesn't count as butting in.

Nope, but applying Colonialism to a part of the world that isn't even near you is "butting in". The Falklands have no right to "belong" to the British anymore than North Ireland does. They are the aftermath of British Imperalism/Colonialism.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

It's just the vocal minority. Which unfortunately (as always) are far more in the spotlight than most Americans, who plainly don't give a crap.

Sorry, but its NOT the vocal minority. The vocal minority are actually the ones who are NOT patriotic.

It really depends on your point of view and your definition of patriotism. A lot of people seem to consider patriotism blindly ignoring the faults of America, but I tend to define it differently. I consider myself a patriot, because I care a lot about America, but a lot of people would call me unpatriotic because I criticize many of the directions that we are taking.

My personal opinion is that if we blindly ignore our faults, we cannot improve. We do have our faults, sure... but damn, I love this country. I'm not happy with the direction we are heading right now, but thats only because I care and I want this country to be as great for my children as it was for me.

 

[SilentCom]

It is a bad stereotype. Also, it isn't bad if people are proud of where they are from, unless they go about stomping on other countries...

I'm playing the devils advocate here, why are people from other countries not patriotic about their countries?

 

[Treblaine]

You know that being patriotic is actually part of our goal in public education here in the US right? I'm not even kidding. There is a reason that every morning, public school kids are made to stand and read the Pledge like we're goddamn Hitler youths.

You don't seem know the first thing about Hitler Youth.

Hitler Youth was slavish and unquestioning loyalty not to Germany, but to "Der Furher", it was to radicalise children to hate Jews and exploit weakness. That Germany needed "living space" and slave labour to work for them and warriors would win that land and slaves. THAT is the Hitler Youth. The key is in their title: "HITLER youth" not "German Youth".

That's nationalism, defined hatred and evil intentions for other countries.

Patriotism in American schools is loyalty to America as a whole, NOT the executive branch nor the legislative or judicial. That every citizen is responsible for the good running of a country. United not under a dictator, but under a constitution and a flag. The rule of law, not of the tyrant.

I'm British and I know this... how do you not know this?

Are you really so skewed by mistaking the Bellamy salute for a Hitler Salute? Which pre-dated the Nazi usage and both drew from the same source of the Roman salute.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

It's like North Ireland, in that England is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Don't talk about what you don't know.

I know enough to know that Britain shouldn't be there anymore than the Orange Order.

 

[Josh123914]

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.

Ask that to the people who live there.


The islands were uninhabited when they were discovered, so it was fair game.

When soverignty came into dispute, they even let the islanders vote on who they wanted to be part of.

The British did many terrible things in their colonial days, but the Falklands was not one of them.

"Fair game"? Really? Sounds more like Imperialism to me. Why would a country that is 777.8 miles away from the Faroe Islands, need to go there? Honestly?

The Islands didn't belong to anyone, and that was pretty much the 'in thing' at the time. You know. Finding places.

I meant to type Falklands not Faroe Islands, my bad. Anyways, the whole issue should be between Argentina and the Falklands, England has no right to but in between the two places anymore than it does butting in between any issues Hong Kong has with Mainland China.

The difference there is Hong Kong is no longer British where as the people of the Falklands are British citizens (by choice). I'd say protecting one's citizens from an invading force doesn't count as butting in.[/qu

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.

Ask that to the people who live there.

The islands were uninhabited when they were discovered, so it was fair game.

When soverignty came into dispute, they even let the islanders vote on who they wanted to be part of.

The British did many terrible things in their colonial days, but the Falklands was not one of them.

"Fair game"? Really? Sounds more like Imperialism to me. Why would a country that is 777.8 miles away from the Faroe Islands, need to go there? Honestly?

The Islands didn't belong to anyone, and that was pretty much the 'in thing' at the time. You know. Finding places.

I meant to type Falklands not Faroe Islands, my bad. Anyways, the whole issue should be between Argentina and the Falklands, England has no right to but in between the two places anymore than it does butting in between any issues Hong Kong has with Mainland China.

The difference there is Hong Kong is no longer British where as the people of the Falklands are British citizens (by choice). I'd say protecting one's citizens from an invading force doesn't count as butting in.

Nope, but applying Colonialism to a part of the world that isn't even near you is "butting in". The Falklands have no right to "belong" to the British anymore than North Ireland does. They are the aftermath of British Imperalism/Colonialism.

Oh God, not this crap again, I'm not going to get into a political debate but long story short Ireland's economy is currently in the shitter so even if we split of from them we'd see massive inflation and job loss (and on the Falklands, they only have a population of about 4,000 and most are british anyway) , I'm not against Northern Ireland joining the rebublic anytime soon, just as long as they can base their economy on something other than the housing market. (and believe me, I know enough about it, my Dad & uncles were hit hard by it)

 

[Vault Citizen]

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.

Ask that to the people who live there.


The islands were uninhabited when they were discovered, so it was fair game.

When soverignty came into dispute, they even let the islanders vote on who they wanted to be part of.

The British did many terrible things in their colonial days, but the Falklands was not one of them.

"Fair game"? Really? Sounds more like Imperialism to me. Why would a country that is 777.8 miles away from the Faroe Islands, need to go there? Honestly?

The Islands didn't belong to anyone, and that was pretty much the 'in thing' at the time. You know. Finding places.

I meant to type Falklands not Faroe Islands, my bad. Anyways, the whole issue should be between Argentina and the Falklands, England has no right to but in between the two places anymore than it does butting in between any issues Hong Kong has with Mainland China.

The difference there is Hong Kong is no longer British where as the people of the Falklands are British citizens (by choice). I'd say protecting one's citizens from an invading force doesn't count as butting in.[/qu

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.

Ask that to the people who live there.

The islands were uninhabited when they were discovered, so it was fair game.

When soverignty came into dispute, they even let the islanders vote on who they wanted to be part of.

The British did many terrible things in their colonial days, but the Falklands was not one of them.

"Fair game"? Really? Sounds more like Imperialism to me. Why would a country that is 777.8 miles away from the Faroe Islands, need to go there? Honestly?

The Islands didn't belong to anyone, and that was pretty much the 'in thing' at the time. You know. Finding places.

I meant to type Falklands not Faroe Islands, my bad. Anyways, the whole issue should be between Argentina and the Falklands, England has no right to but in between the two places anymore than it does butting in between any issues Hong Kong has with Mainland China.

The difference there is Hong Kong is no longer British where as the people of the Falklands are British citizens (by choice). I'd say protecting one's citizens from an invading force doesn't count as butting in.

Nope, but applying Colonialism to a part of the world that isn't even near you is "butting in". The Falklands have no right to "belong" to the British anymore than North Ireland does. They are the aftermath of British Imperalism/Colonialism.

I believe that a society has the right to chose the leaders that they wish to rule, protect and serve them. Assuming that the choice of the citizens of the Falklands is genuinely to remain British that is their right, to claim that they have no right to express their wish not to be Argentinian would be to impose unwanted rule upon them.

Being British that means they are entitled to protection from Britain, protection they need from Argentinia if they wish to continue to have their choice to not be Argentinian.

In my opinion that is what it is about, protecting their choice, whatever that means.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

Let them have their patriotism.

Their country is still new, they still have time to do a few more war crimes, maybe colonise some places, kill the natives etc.

You're only young once.


*sips tea*

Yes, quite.

We've already done all that.

I guess we just haven't perfected it yet.

 

[The Human Torch]

It's just the vocal minority. Which unfortunately (as always) are far more in the spotlight than most Americans, who plainly don't give a crap.

Sorry, but its NOT the vocal minority. The vocal minority are actually the ones who are NOT patriotic.

You are wrong, most Americans in this thread agree with me. The people who are not patriotic are the ones you never hear, cause they could care less.

 

[thiosk]

You'd be patriotic too if your country was *This Awesome* holy shit its fucking raining liberty outside CAN YOU FEEL IT... yes... bask in the glow of freedom and let your troubles wash over you

 

[Chrinik]

What's wrong with having pride in your country? If you love where you live you should defend it, I'm not saying beat the tar out of anyone who dislikes America or anything but when did liking where you live become a bad thing?

Since the Nazis took over...
Serriously, being a german AND being "proud of germany" or outright patriotic makes people jump on you like you want to clone Hitler...

 

[zestamaster]

well i know i dont do that, but the people who do are genrally not reallly willing to hear annything else (and BTW i watch fox news so its not all of us)

 

[Skratt]

OP, it's actually the vocal minority you are referring to. Most of us are just normal people you'd find in any country anywhere in the world, except maybe Antartica which, as we all know based on our Made in USA maps, is the last place on earth where the monsters live. Plus it's really cold there and has no oil to mine.

What?

I figured since we were working the stereotype angle, I'd go whole hog.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

It's like North Ireland, in that England is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Don't talk about what you don't know.

I know enough to know that Britain shouldn't be there anymore than the Orange Order.

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about especially as your country funded terrorism for decades over here.

My country has nothing to do with what you and I are discussing, but yep your right. Now what? You brought up my country even though it has nothing to do with North Ireland. Congratulations on that. Like I said, the Orange Order should not be in any part of Ireland anymore than the K.K.K. should be in the USA

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Why are non-Americans so stereotypical and elitist to America?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

I was kind of talking about multiculturalism actually. The idea that people should have to accept other cultures is complete nonsense.

But the idea that one culture is superior to another isn't?

 

[Zaverexus]

It's just the vocal minority. Which unfortunately (as always) are far more in the spotlight than most Americans, who plainly don't give a crap.

Yeah. As an American I hardly even call myself American.
I'm not patriotic at all, and I feel zero obligation to a group of people who claim to control a space of land and just happen to have a lot of people with guns who believe them.