On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:22:43AM +0000, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >
> >What does love your country mean? Should I also love my state or my
> >county?
>
> We settled THAT issue in the Civil War, thank you very much! Now, people do
> love their states, some people do. I don't feel one way or another about
> Illinois, though. Still, despite our anachrobistic Federalism, states are
> largely admistrative regions.
>
> Should I have more affection for somebody who lives in California
> >and somebody who resides in New York?
>
> Than whom? But the bond of common nationality isn't a matter of affection
> for individuals.
>
> What does it mean to think
> >something less of somebody -- less enough to go to war against him -- just
> >because he lives somewhere else?
>
> Well, that would be pretty dumb. I don't think the most ardent jingo thinks
> that we should go to war with people just because they live elsewhere.
>
> If I am to think less of him because of
> >geography, why not extend that same principle to race?
> >
>
> Who said anything about thinking less of someone because they live somewhere
> else? Think of family, analogous to patriotism in some ways in being
> relatively independent of personal affection. I don't think less of you just
> because you're not in my family. But I do care more about my family than I
> care about you, sorry about that, Michael. That's so even if I think more of
> you than I do of some people in my family.
>
> >I can appreciate accomplishments of the people of United States, just as I
> >can think ill of actions of which I disapprove.
> >
>
> But it's not just a matter of detached appreciation or disapproval. I feel
> pride that we produced Martin and Malcolm and Louis Armstrong, and ashamed
> that we produced Strom Thurmond and Richard Nixon and Wayne Newton. I don't
> feel proud of Lady Murasaki or Kenzeburo Oe--Yoshie can, but I
> can't--although I admire them--or ashamed of Tojo. And as Jews, Michael, we
> should feel specially sullied by Sharon and Barak and can feel honored to be
> the people who produced Marx and the Marx Brothers. Doug can't--he's not
> Jewish.
>
> What we have here is the classic Enlightenment problem with patriotism.
> There's no place in classical Englightenment liberalism, a doctrine I adhere
> to in many ways, for unchosen identities. But they're a fact, and they're
> opart of what makes us human. I'm no communitarian, but the c's are right
> about the importance of this fact.
>
> Now, why nation rather than race? A priori, there's no reason. But we don't
> face the matter a priori. We face it in a particular context. In practice,
> it's because racial identifications have a particularly ugly history, at
> least from the side of the dominant group. True, nationalism can be pretty
> ugly too. But it is more complex. It can be an attachment to a place and a
> people without any assumption of superiority--like family. Lincoln's racsim
> we cannot ignore, but it's not what we celebrate in him. Lincoln's
> patriotism, his burning attachment to the Union, is what made him great.
>
> I do not foreswear class allegience. I am always and everywhere on the side
> of the working classes of all nations, first and foremost. But Marx was
> wrong about this one thing: the workers have countries, and that's not
> necessarily a bad thing. Anyway it's something we have to live with. I'll
> fight "Buy American" till the day I die, that's stupid and wrong. But "Be
> American"? Why not? This land is your land, this land is my land, this land
> belongs to you and me.
>
>
> jks
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu