• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Belong Here?

Have you ever felt that you don't belong in your country?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 31.7%
  • No

    Votes: 25 61.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.3%

  • Total voters
    41
I voted yes that last 8 years in America were pure Hell. The econonomy crapped out for the working poor like me on 9/12/2001 (take that Beck) Now we're hearing about how bad it is because all the richies that said I was "whinning and need to pull myself up by my boot straps" are screaming like little girls about how the million dollar home they bought isn't worth as much anymore. Boo efin' hoo shut up now whiners!

What do you do for a living?
 
What do you do for a living?

I work in the mailroom of the HQ of a large national retail discount store. My largest raise in 16 years was .31 cents. I'm not a Burger King employee working for minimum wage but I have an unemployeed wife with a severe mental illness that we've tried to get SSI support for but like everybody who can't afford a lawyer to sue the state for it, we got turned down. We've lost our car to repossesion our condo in foreclosure and we have a mountain of medical bills from what I mentioned before. Even though I pay $200.00 a month in healthcare premiums and over $300.00 in perscriptions. We can barely afford a co-payment right now.
 
Never in my life have I thought I didn't belong here. I have ALWAYS known this is my country.

This Is My Country

This is my country! Land of my birth!
This is my country! Grandest on earth!
I pledge thee my allegiance, America, the bold,
For this is my country to have and to hold.

What diff'rence if I hail from North or South
Or from the East or West?
My heart is filled with love for all of these.
I only know I swell with pride and deep within my breast
I thrill to see Old Glory paint the breeze.

With hand upon heart I thank the Lord For this my native land,
For all I love is here within her gates.
My soul is rooted deeply in the soil on which I stand,
For these are mine own United States.

This is my country! Land of my choice!
This is my country! Hear my proud voice!
I pledge thee my allegiance, America, the bold,
For this is my country! To have and to hold.
 
Personally I've always wondered how you could have such intense patriotism for an entity the size of the US. It seems to me you don't know most of the places or people, sure you can have warm feelings towards the country but patriotism, I think that should start and be strongest in ones locale and region.

Even my English patriotism is far less than that towards Wessex or Dorset.

As Burke said: To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections.
 
Patriotism is the natural result of nationalism, and both are ingrained by federalism. No government can effectively run without a collective sense of unity and pride.
 
American by birth! :usflag2:
Southern by the Grace of God! :gunsmilie

I'm fine where I'm at thanks, as long as the Leftists don't screw it up too much.


:2usflag::july_4th:

G.
 
Patriotism is the natural result of nationalism, and both are ingrained by federalism. No government can effectively run without a collective sense of unity and pride.

Indeed but I always have a distrust of patriotism for large areas, it seems like an abstraction to me, particularly if the lower associations and areas in a country are less important to this kind of nationalist.
 
Through travelling I've discovered that most of the larger countries are not truly "one country" because they have so many ethnic groups that don't fall under the same umbrella. China is a good example of this... it's just so huge, yet the government tries to make it seem like everyone falls under the same banner. I'm going to Xinjiang this summer, one of the largest autonomous regions in China, and it is basically the Middle East... architecturally, linguistically, culturally, ethnically... yet the Chinese government tries to propagate the idea that the people of Xinjiang are simply a minority within China. Such a lie, this is. Xinjiang is another country, in my view.

Canada, to some extent, was like this, which was a big point of contention for me. Canada is one of those countries that has allowed so much immigration that there is now a high level of diversity in the major city centers. People who are second or third generation Canadians now ask: What is my heritage? What is special about Canada? is Canadian culture being threatened? Say, what is Canadian culture anyway?

The government steps in and tries to form some kind of nationalism. I don't see why Canada needs a special dance, a unique dish, or other cultural clichés to be "special". Yet the government tries to nationalize by spreading such ideas. Canada really isn't one country. Central Canada thinks it is the center of the universe... the Eastern provinces are mostly poor because they have a relatively traditional way of life, and Western Canada (excluding Alberta a.k.a wannabe Texas) is spinning way out there in orbit with its own projects. The Northern territories... they might as well be in outer space.

IMO nationalism in the patriotic sense is dangerous and ignorant.
 
Through travelling I've discovered that most of the larger countries are not truly "one country" because they have so many ethnic groups that don't fall under the same umbrella. China is a good example of this... it's just so huge, yet the government tries to make it seem like everyone falls under the same banner. I'm going to Xinjiang this summer, one of the largest autonomous regions in China, and it is basically the Middle East... architecturally, linguistically, culturally, ethnically... yet the Chinese government tries to propagate the idea that the people of Xinjiang are simply a minority within China. Such a lie, this is. Xinjiang is another country, in my view.

Canada, to some extent, was like this, which was a big point of contention for me. Canada is one of those countries that has allowed so much immigration that there is now a high level of diversity in the major city centers. People who are second or third generation Canadians now ask: What is my heritage? What is special about Canada? is Canadian culture being threatened? Say, what is Canadian culture anyway?

The government steps in and tries to form some kind of nationalism. I don't see why Canada needs a special dance, a unique dish, or other cultural clichés to be "special". Yet the government tries to nationalize by spreading such ideas. Canada really isn't one country. Central Canada thinks it is the center of the universe... the Eastern provinces are mostly poor because they have a relatively traditional way of life, and Western Canada (excluding Alberta a.k.a wannabe Texas) is spinning way out there in orbit with its own projects. The Northern territories... they might as well be in outer space.

IMO nationalism in the patriotic sense is dangerous and ignorant.

Thank you, that last sentence really nailed it. It seems dangerously extremist to me, which relates back to that "reviving the GOP" thread. People should not be focused on that nationalism.
 
Personally I've always wondered how you could have such intense patriotism for an entity the size of the US. It seems to me you don't know most of the places or people, sure you can have warm feelings towards the country but patriotism, I think that should start and be strongest in ones locale and region.

sure I do.... :mrgreen:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0dyanRo54w&feature=related"]YouTube - Johnny Cash - Ive Been Everywhere[/ame]


;)
 
IMO nationalism in the patriotic sense is dangerous and ignorant.
I think is complex. I don't liberal extreme universal is a good replacement. I don't feel replacing one abstraction with an even greater one is going to help. I sure as hell am not European patriot.

I think nationalism or at least the nation state and national identity can be a good thing if it is built on integrated, and yes stronger, local and regional patriotism and takes in room for both the small-scale associations that make up a nation and the necessary very mild bit of universalism to dilute effects of any massively too strong particularism.

I do have my doubts so about such abstract and massive identities as India, China and the US.
 
Not in my country, per se, but I was born and raised in the mountains and I've never felt that I belonged in the desert or anywhere that's flat.
Purrs,
Pookie
 
sure I do.... :mrgreen:


;)

Rev, I wish I could thank you twice for bringing Johnny Cash into this, and thereby raising the cultural sophistication of the forum several notches. :mrgreen:
 
Personally I've always wondered how you could have such intense patriotism for an entity the size of the US. It seems to me you don't know most of the places or people, sure you can have warm feelings towards the country but patriotism, I think that should start and be strongest in ones locale and region.

Even my English patriotism is far less than that towards Wessex or Dorset.

As Burke said: To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections.

To love all of nature is easier for you to comprehend, maybe?
 
YEs. Some days I do not think I belong on this Earth:-O
 
It makes more sense to me to strive to show love and compassion to all human beings, regardless if they are your countrymen or not. If America were split down the center today into two countries, that arbitrary border, over time, would also divide affections. The border is relatively meaningless in terms of one's ability to treat others as they would want to be treated.
 
It makes more sense to me to strive to show love and compassion to all human beings, regardless if they are your countrymen or not. If America were split down the center today into two countries, that arbitrary border, over time, would also divide affections. The border is relatively meaningless in terms of one's ability to treat others as they would want to be treated.

You are right and you are wrong. To have intense patriotism for a massive entity makes little sense to me because you know so little of it through your everyday experiences, it seems like abtractionism. But that goes doubly so for humanity as a whole, I certainly think that one should have that mininum of respect and love for his fellow man but it is to those small-scale associtions, those little platoons that I feel one shoul dhave the greatest loyalty too, it is these that form of much of the individuals personality, meaning, order and freedom.

I do not trust either those nationalists who put the nation before all other associations and those universalists who try and put humanity before all.
 
You are right and you are wrong. To have intense patriotism for a massive entity makes little sense to me because you know so little of it through your everyday experiences, it seems like abtractionism. But that goes doubly so for humanity as a whole, I certainly think that one should have that mininum of respect and love for his fellow man but it is to those small-scale associtions, those little platoons that I feel one shoul dhave the greatest loyalty too, it is these that form of much of the individuals personality, meaning, order and freedom.

I do not trust either those nationalists who put the nation before all other associations and those universalists who try and put humanity before all.

Creating a dichotomy based on the micro and the macro and then deciding which you care for more is unnecessary in my eyes. I have been all over the world so I see it all as one entity. Maybe if I were born hundreds of years ago and never travelled outside of my community and knew nothing about the outside world, I would have more loyalty to my locale.
 
Creating a dichotomy based on the micro and the macro and then deciding which you care for more is unnecessary in my eyes. I have been all over the world so I see it all as one entity. Maybe if I were born hundreds of years ago and never travelled outside of my community and knew nothing about the outside world, I would have more loyalty to my locale.

All that means is you know a little of many places, rather than a great deal about a few, not a good thing in my book. It seems superficial to me. We are still humans with limited faculties, we cannot know and experience everyday detailed associations and areas beyond the quite small. The dichotomy still exists and it seems a lot surer footing against atomism, abstractionism and a better platform for a realistic, free and ordered society if one identifies far more strongly with the little platoons rather than having or trying to have intense patriotism for large areas or humanity, entities we know very little about in our everyday experiences.

As George Canning said about Thomas Paine:

A citizen of the world alone, a friend of every country but his own.

I make no bones about preferring my family by far to random people from the other side of the world and preferring my community to that of a far-flung city and preferring my region to one in China.
 
All that means is you know a little of many places, rather than a great deal about a few, not a good thing in my book. It seems superficial to me.

This is a really big assumption which could have been clarified if you had bothered to ask me the nature of my travels. Too late.

We are still humans with limited faculties, we cannot know and experience everyday detailed associations and areas beyond the quite small. The dichotomy still exists and it seems a lot surer footing against atomism, abstractionism and a better platform for a realistic, free and ordered society if one identifies far more strongly with the little platoons rather than having or trying to have intense patriotism for large areas or humanity, entities we know very little about in our everyday experiences.

You can have connections to many different communities and people all over the world. This is not only a possibility but a reality for people like me. You're assuming that one way is better but I don't think there is any right or wrong answer. I respect your life experience and what works for you, but don't dictate to me about what is "superficial" and has more value as that is a moot argument. I would never trade my worldly experiences for strictly a local experience any day, even though I have had both and value both. My worldly experience is mostly the culmination of many local experiences anyway. This is why I think the division between micro and macro is essentially meaningless.

And I wasn't talking about patriotism for all of humanity, but love and compassion. I'm not sure why you are still talking about that.

I make no bones about preferring my family by far to random people from the other side of the world and preferring my community to that of a far-flung city and preferring my region to one in China.

The people who I've met, have formed relationships with, and care deeply for, are hardly "random". I consider a lot of them family just as much as my blood family. I find your definition of family and community to be very narrow and confining. You just have a different upbringing than me I guess.

If you've never been to China or attempted to form communal ties there, then of course you'll prefer the community you're in now. My point was that nationalism and patriotism are predicated upon artificial boundaries and the emphasis on what is different between societies. You assert that local level patriotism is better... but that is just another border, except it is more on a local level. This town, this county, this population. Before nationalism, even counties had conflicts based on their borders. Even now, there are regional rivalries within nations.

It's this divisionalism that doesn't make sense to me, because I have been to a number of places and see humans in a different light I suppose. Whether it's local or national, it makes no difference to me. It's still a division.
 
Last edited:
This is a really big assumption which could have been clarified if you had bothered to ask me the nature of my travels. Too late.
I didn't have to, I simply assumed the nature of your form; human.


You can have connections to many different communities and people all over the world. This is not only a possibility but a reality for people like me. You're assuming that one way is better but I don't think there is any right or wrong answer. I respect your life experience and what works for you, but don't dictate to me about what is "superficial" and has more value as that is a moot argument. I would never trade my worldly experiences for strictly a local experience any day, even though I have had both and value both. My worldly experience is mostly the culmination of many local experiences anyway. This is why I think the division between micro and macro is essentially meaningless.
But these connections are not everyday immersions, they are not based on knowing an area and its people inside out. Even today men are still men and their is only a limit to their faculties. It is superficial because of the sheer impossibility of knowing so many places inside out.

And I wasn't talking about patriotism for all of humanity, but love and compassion. I'm not sure why you are still talking about that.
I don't disagree we owe a minimum of those for all humanity but I still think we owe more loyalty and feeling to our own little platoons and that it is better if that is what happens. People who try to be overly universalist and nationalist are both not going the right way in my book.

The people who I've met, have formed relationships with, and care deeply for, are hardly "random". I consider a lot of them family just as much as my blood family. I find your definition of family and community to be very narrow and confining. You just have a different upbringing than me I guess.
You could know a few people in many places quite well but it still lacks that everyday connection to place and community. What you are basically saying is that if I know a few people very well from say Nottingham and a few from Rouen and a few from Bangkok and keep in touch with them using all the latest mod-cons then that is as good as having a strong community within your local and region. I suppose this is better than the usual atomistic individaulist and extreme universalist stuff that minimises the importance of social ties completely.

However I still don't think it rings true psychologically, sociologically or politically. It does not seem to provide the everyday contact within the immersion of culture, community and place that these seem to have always required. The contact is somewhat mediated and isolated, you don't know this person as part of your everyday existence but somehow apart, the cultures and social structures are different and the political and geographical arena as well. I don't doubt that a degree of these contant may be a good thing, so as not to completely parochialise oneself but to rely on them to replace community does not seem wise to me.

If you've never been to China or attempted to form communal ties there, then of course you'll prefer the community you're in now. My point was that nationalism and patriotism are predicated upon artificial boundaries and the emphasis on what is different between societies. You assert that local level patriotism is better... but that is just another border, except it is more on a local level. This town, this county, this population. Before nationalism, even counties had conflicts based on their borders. Even now, there are regional rivalries within nations.
The problem with that is even today life is lived locally. We perhaps can talk to those further away more today but we don't live in their worlds still. I think that it is far better to be immersed in the world of your everyday existence, to build most of your community there than to try and build communal ties with a few people from many different places. It weakens the ties and lessens the benefits and still leaves one rather isolated. For instance it is far easier for a strong, community centred village or block to resist a state or a corporation than people isolated all over the country(or world.).

I think these divisions are often good things. I'm a very particularlist man, I don't believe breaking down borders is often a good thing.
It's this divisionalism that doesn't make sense to me, because I have been to a number of places and see humans in a different light I suppose. Whether it's local or national, it makes no difference to me. It's still a division.
Division can be a good thing, in fact it is necessary to a degree for good gov't. Mass man is not a route we should go down any further.
 
Last edited:
I sometimes wonder what happened to my country, and if it still exists. Especially now that we have a man in the presidency with a resume insufficient to the management of a bait shop, and an inability to speak properly without electronic data input, like some early stage Borg.
 
I didn't have to, I simply assumed the nature of your form; human.

No... you assumed that I only know a little about many places, without bothering to ask. It has nothing to do with my form but an erroneous assumption about my life experience.

But these connections are not everyday immersions, they are not based on knowing an area and its people inside out. Even today men are still men and their is only a limit to their faculties. It is superficial because of the sheer impossibility of knowing so many places inside out.

While I haven't felt a strong to connection to every place I've been, I don't agree with your point that you need to know an area inside and out in order for it to be important, or to foster community. I knew the city I grew up in inside and out and to this day it is still the place I hold the least sense of community.

I don't disagree we owe a minimum of those for all humanity but I still think we owe more loyalty and feeling to our own little platoons and that it is better if that is what happens. People who try to be overly universalist and nationalist are both not going the right way in my book.

Who it is "owed" to is subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying you can't generalize on behalf of every person. Every person's experience of the things you're describing is different. It's not a one size fits all situation, but is highly personal.

Please define what you mean by universalist.

You could know a few people in many places quite well but it still lacks that everyday connection to place and community. What you are basically

Define an "everyday connection".

The problem with that is even today life is lived locally. We perhaps can talk to those further away more today but we don't live in their worlds still.

I think that it is far better to be immersed in the world of your everyday existence, to build most of your community there than to try and build communal ties with a few people from many different places. It weakens the ties and lessens the benefits and still leaves one rather isolated.

Wherever I am, that is where I am immersed. That is where my community is, and the people there know me as someone who travels yet still accept me as part of their locale. So you see, I have many communities the world over.

The ties are not weakened because those people understand the nature of who I am as a traveller, and support my choices. If you are someone like me who believes that relationships transcend distances, then it's a no brainer. It's true that I can't be in contact with everyone at all times or know what is going on in their life at all times, but that would be true even if I were still living there... and I know that if I were to appear in any given community again, I could easily pick up where I left off.

For you, your neighbour is on your street. For me, my neighbour is in another country. You walk down your street. I take a flight. The only difference is the scale of the experience.

I think it really depends on the person and on the situation. Again, you are generalizing. I've met travellers who are extremely isolated people because they have led a nomadic life and have not made sincere attempts to make connections with the people in the places they go. They are the loneliest sorts. For me it's kind of the opposite... I feel a sense of community on my entire planet because of everywhere I have lived.

For instance it is far easier for a strong, community centred village or block to resist a state or a corporation than people isolated all over the country(or world.).

I think this example is more applicable to statehood, which is not really the focus of our discussion.

I think these divisions are often good things. I'm a very particularlist man, I don't believe breaking down borders is often a good thing.
Division can be a good thing, in fact it is necessary to a degree for good gov't. Mass man is not a route we should go down any further.

In terms of allocating resources and maintaining heritage, I think boundaries can be a good thing... but when it creates mental divisions of "us vs. them", I find them extremely limiting. This is just the phase of social development that humanity is at though. Mine is a generation in the newly globalized era where transportation and communication between nations is growing.

I think globalization has worn down the borders a bit, and there are pros and cons to this. It's the pros that I'm really taking advantage of as part of my life experience.
 
No... you assumed that I only know a little about many places, without bothering to ask. It has nothing to do with my form but an erroneous assumption about my life experience.
No I assumed it because you are human. It would be very hard for you to really know a place and its community inside out without spending years there.


While I haven't felt a strong to connection to every place I've been, I don't agree with your point that you need to know an area inside and out in order for it to be important, or to foster community. I knew the city I grew up in inside and out and to this day it is still the place I hold the least sense of community.
Oh I agree it is not sufficient, simply necessary. I mean I've lived in one part of Sydney for 4 years and not felt community because it isn't here.



Who it is "owed" to is subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying you can't generalize on behalf of every person. Every person's experience of the things you're describing is different. It's not a one size fits all situation, but is highly personal.
I meant owed as in what is best for individual and social health. I think there is a subjective element but a large objective and social one as well.
Please define what you mean by universalist.
Well I use it rather loosely but simply someone who wants to break down a lot of barriers and have people consider themselves larger and larger units.


Define an "everyday connection".
As in you see and experience the people and place in your everyday working and recreational and general existence.
Wherever I am, that is where I am immersed. That is where my community is, and the people there know me as someone who travels yet still accept me as part of their locale. So you see, I have many communities the world over.
And you generally won't be able to know these one's as well as would be best if you don't spend a long time there.

The ties are not weakened because those people understand the nature of who I am as a traveller, and support my choices. If you are someone like me who believes that relationships transcend distances, then it's a no brainer. It's true that I can't be in contact with everyone at all times or know what is going on in their life at all times, but that would be true even if I were still living there... and I know that if I were to appear in any given community again, I could easily pick up where I left off.
It would be far less true if you lived there. When you live there the culture, region and people form part of your daily existence, if community is present of course.
For you, your neighbour is on your street. For me, my neighbour is in another country. You walk down your street. I take a flight. The only difference is the scale of the experience.
Not really. In a proper community my neighbour would know me for years, he'd know the same people I did, he'd know the same land and be of the same culture and local traditions. It would be very different.
I think it really depends on the person and on the situation. Again, you are generalizing. I've met travellers who are extremely isolated people because they have led a nomadic life and have not made sincere attempts to make connections with the people in the places they go. They are the loneliest sorts. For me it's kind of the opposite... I feel a sense of community on my entire planet because of everywhere I have lived.
Yes but if you are an outsider who only spends a few months in a place I don't see how you can build the necessary connections to place and people.

I think this example is more applicable to statehood, which is not really the focus of our discussion.
I disagree, community should be a key building block of a state or society.

In terms of allocating resources and maintaining heritage, I think boundaries can be a good thing... but when it creates mental divisions of "us vs. them", I find them extremely limiting. This is just the phase of social development that humanity is at though. Mine is a generation in the newly globalized era where transportation and communication between nations is growing.
I think a degree of mental divisions are good as long as they don't become too all consuming and narrow. This means that the local people are able to stand up for their rights and liberties against encroachment. I actually think though localism and regionalism help to guard against the "bigoted" and overly negative divisionism that you speak of. They are based on areas far more real to the individual and far less involved in power relations and such. I mean English nationalists are very interested in the power and glory of England measured usually in terms of size, economy and military power and influence but what does a man of Dorset or Wessex care about that. A small-scale patriot is not too interested in whether his region has the greatest armed forces or diplomatic influence but more its culture and society.

I think globalization has worn down the borders a bit, and there are pros and cons to this. It's the pros that I'm really taking advantage of as part of my life experience.
The problem is that if one travels to see other local cultures then these will be very negatively effected by attitudes or at least realities that remove cultural significance completely from the local and regional area. It will likely just further the McDonaldisation of these cultures.
 
Back
Top Bottom