richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (08/03/85)
Patriotism is a funny word. I f I ask a John Bircher what it means, he will rush into a spiel on protecting the American Way of life from Communism and immorality. He sees his patriotic duty as encompassing 'the silencing of the communist threat.' The fact that he construes this to be a higher duty than upholding the letter (and intent) of the Constitution is a minor fact, in his eyes. My point is that Patriotism is entirely subjective. I do not think that Reagan is the best President America has ever had, nor do I think that America is as good a nation as it could be. On the other hand, I think that it is probably one of the best *currently in existence*. I also know that I would rather live here than in Moscow or Leningrad. Am I Patriotic? Some people would say I am. Don Black might not. In any case, I feel that I am reasonably patriotic. The one duty I do see set forth by the Constitution is for Americans to make America the best country it can be. Do not read that as 'The best country in the world.' Before America tried to play Big Daddy ( Who was that masked African? :-) ) to the world, It was generally ignored. Not necessarily liked or disliked, but generally not molested. Unfortunately, I doubt that the events which have made America "Protector of the West" could have been prevented. As someone mentioned, Pax Romana was based upon the military might of Rome. This gave way to the Dark Ages. Pax Britanica (Britannia?) was based upon the superior military and navy of Britain. Pax America (Americana?) has been based upon the atomic bomb at one time and the greatest unused natural resource base in the world. Eventually, the torch will have to be passed on. What, however, is it that we are defending? The West? Don't kid yourself, Rome wasn't a western nation by any streak of the imagination. No. We are defending civilization. Although atrocities have always been comitted (Jurusalem, India, Viet Nam), the general duty of each 'PeaceKeeper' has been to minimize the number of wars going on their sphere of influence, generally by conquering the area and instilling their own culture in the populace. The effort, at all times, has been to create 'the greates good for the greates number.' Unfortunately(?), Rulers are not omniscient. Thus, they screw up. We also do not and can not know what would have happened had a peacekeeper stepped in. Viet Nam might have become an enlightened and well run country. We can make the educated guess that many people would be suffering far more than they are now. Someone has to make the decisions. However, mooning about whether this decision or that decision was the best possible is futile. WHat we should do is not quibble about whether America is the best country in the world, but work on making it be the best government for the people being governed by it. Eventually that may mean that the United States, as a country, will have to give up it's sovereignity to a larger, multi-national body. And DB: just because a lot of other people are paranoid about there being a country which is larger than they are, that doesn't mean you need to be paranoid as well. orstcs!richardt "Where are you going?" "To join the riot" "Don't you think that could be dangerous?" "Of course not! Everyone else is there, aren't they?"
bill@persci.UUCP (09/25/85)
In article <1688@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >>"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." --Samuel Johnson >"In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last >refuge of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but >inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." > -- Ambrose Bierce >David Canzi >ACCUSE, v. t. To affirm another's guilt or unworth; most commonly as a >justification of ourselves for having wronged him. (Ambrose Bierce) Thank you, David, especially for the last quotation. May I respectfully present a small point of logic? The "fact" (not proven in the above quotes, they are merely opinions) that attitude "A" is a "refuge" for "B" does *NOT* imply that "A" is occupied by "B" only. Surely this is obvious to any muddle-head with sufficient intelligence to be on this net, yet there seem to be those who take one's expression of "A" as proof positive that one is a member of "B". Maybe I will revise my opinion as to the entry requirements of the net.. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill