Are You a Patriot?

[RoyGBiv]

Define that how you want.

While watching the HBO series on John Adams again the other day, combined with some research I've done recently into a certain late 19th/early 20th century social movement, the question occurred to me whether those who loathe the current government, for whatever reason, consider themselves patriots. Due to the nature of the research and some themes in the Adams series, I became particularly interested in the thoughts of those who seem to base their opinion of their country or the individuals who run it on single issues, or issues that collectively can be combined into a single theme. For example, Adams defended the perpetrators of the Boston Massacre, yet was one of those most responsible for the Declaration of Independence being signed. He considered himself a patriot and others did as well, but the term "patriot" was defined differently at different times.

So, are you a patriot?

[Kutjara]

1. I don't consider myself a patriot, because...

...I dislike nations and I dislike centralized government. My allegiance lies with people, their rights and obligations to other people, to freedom of expression and lifestyle, and to equality for all. Drawing borders and calling this side "us" and that side "them" is anathema to my core values. Patriotism is merely an overt reflection of the divisions that harm us all.

[RoyGBiv]

7. Centralized government ...

Serious question ... Are you an anarchist?

[Kutjara]

11. In the sense that I...

...believe all power should be devolved to the most local appropriate level, yes. While this may well entail some power being held in the "center", I would prefer this be limited to the minimum necessary.

[Fox Mulder]

28. That's exactly how I feel on this issue.

[Echo In Light]

57. Kutjara ... well stated.

"I hate patriotism, I can't stand it. It's a round world last time I checked." ~ Bill Hicks

[Forkboy]

2. I can't bring myself to say yes.

Because in the end I don't care really care about the concept of America (TM), just the people in it. And even then I only care about them as much as I would any citizen of any country.

[Two Americas]

43. the concept

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Donnachaidh]

3. the term *patriot* has been turned into such a catch phrase

I'm not sure I would want to call myself one -- *because* it's been hijacked, and used as a moniker to cover more than a few sins this government has done. I think if John Adams himself was alive today, he'd refuse to use it to label himself. In fact, he'd disown the *title*.

He'd WEEP at what passes for a *Patriot* these days.

[RoyGBiv]

6. Interesting point ...

The idea that Adams would disown the "title" is noted. :)

I agree that Adams would refuse to label himself a patriot, but perhaps not for the same reasons you may suggest this. (I don't know, so that's not a challenge.) Adams would likely be appalled at the way our entire government runs, with the concept of polls, popular opinion, and democratically representative government in general. He had no use for the so-called "mob." He would likely be very sympathetic to the idea of a "dynasty" in politics. He would not be sympathetic to the popular opinion of the masses influencing a government official's vote.

But, in his day, believing all these things, he was a patriot. He was a patriot just as Thomas Jefferson, owner and rapist of slaves, was.

And we admire these individuals for their patriotism.

FWIW, I consider myself a patriot for some of the same reasons both Jefferson and Adams considered themselves ones. I believe in an idea of America as a positive thing, as I define it, and when individuals, e.g. Dubya Bush, attack that idea or do things that conflict with that idea, I am highly resistant, to the point of rebelliousness from my government.

[silverojo]

9. That's why we Dems need to take back patriotism

Why let the Repukes hijack it, and make us feel ashamed of it? By not reclaiming our patriotism, we're bending over to the Republicans.

Sorry, that's not my style. It's my flag and my country, too, and screw any Repuke who says otherwise.

I agree with you, I think ALL the founding fathers would weep if they were alive to see what's going on today.

[Mojambo]

4. I don't really do patriotism.

This is not to say I can't be proud of my country.

But harmless patriotism too often leads to very harmful nationalism.

[silverojo]

5. Of course, I'm a patriot

I'm proud to be an American, and grateful to have been born into a land where opportunities abound.

With that said, this is exactly the reason Republicans upset me. They want opportunities only for the wealthy, and exploit people's love for this country, solely for their own benefit.

So, yes, I'm a patriot. Blindly following our country's leadership, no matter what, isn't patriotic. Wanting to make this country the best it can be is patriotic.

I think those who shy away from calling themselves patriots have fallen for the Repukes' attempts to equate patriotism with being Republican. Dems need to reclaim the American flag as belonging to all of us (not just Repukes). We also need to reclaim patriotism in its pure, true form...rather than viewing it as the Repukes have redefined it.

To me, a soldier who says, "Hell, no, I won't go" to this illegal war is a lot more patriotic than one who willingly goes to war and enjoys harming innocent people in the name of G.W. Bush.

[krispos42]

8. Yes

America is my country and has been since the first half of the 19th Century when some English guy with the first name of Thaddeus appeared on an affidavit in rural Illinois.

America: make it better while living up to it's ideals and you help everybody in the world.


I don't like this "we're all people so nations don't matter" thinking very much because it is exploited by globalization people and transnational corporations.

[RoyGBiv]

10. I completely agree ...

I wasn't expecting someone to make that point, but I'm glad you did.

[elocs]

12. I suppose I am, but not a "my country, right or wrong" type.

I am not proud of many things this country has done. On my mother's side my family has been in this country for 380 years and on my father's side his grandmother was a Cherokee. So I have deep roots here. In fact, my family has been here so long that I do not really identify with any other country of origin. I guess I just think of myself as an American.

[EFerrari]

13. I don't do nationalism and if I never hear the words

"patriot" or "hero" again, that would be fine with me. Some people really enjoy them and seem to invest a lot in them. I just happen not to.

[Demeter]

14. Well, When I Was Living in New England, Maybe

But now it's Lions for me!

[RoyGBiv]

15. :-)

:thumbsup:

[Systematic Chaos]

16. I hate that damn word, "patriot", so much now, I butcher it in my speech and writing.

Since the PATRIOT Act, it's been "pastry-rot" and pastry-erotic with me.

I love the looks I get when I say them loudly in public. :evilgrin:

[RoyGBiv]

17. As mentioned upthread ...

Why do we let others define "patriot" for us and make us hate it so?

I like your variations, btw. :)

But, I am curious. The research I mentioned in my OP involves a lot of former slaves who set out to make a life for themselves outside the South in the latter part of the 19th century. Patriotism was a common theme among those who did this and encouraged others to do it. If *anyone* had a reason not to be patriotic at all, it was this group of people, but, on the whole, they were fiercely patriotic. Indeed, they used their patriotism as a theme in their struggles to demand the rights due to them.

Why do we discard the label so quickly because the other side defines it in a way we don't like?

[tom_paine]

18. Fucking eh, Bubba!

It is not patriotic to support the "government", and Teddy Roosevelt pretty well said as much (though his quote mentions the unpatriotic nature of supporting a President unconditionally, the same applies to the government as a whole).

What IS patriotic is to love our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our System of Checks and Balances so magnificently designed so many years ago, that has evolved into the nation we had and that the Bushies destroyed in order to possess.

Was it perfect? Hell no! Did we do terrible things? Like all nations ever, we did. Slavery and Native American genocide, to name two. But we did a lot more good to balance out the bad than most nations can claim. And, up until 12/12/2000, we WERE a "becaon of freedom" to much of the world's people.

It may sound hokey and cliche, but it was true for many hundreds of millions.

We aren't a beacon anymore, nor do we deserve to be at this time. We are only a beacon to various tyrants around the world, looking to reduce what little freedom people have in a roundabout, non-brutal way (such as Vlad Putin, who it seems has taken the Bush Plan to heart).

Patriotism, TRUE patriotism, is NOT "my country, right or wrong". TRUE patriotism is (and I am stealing this quote from someone, I cannot remember who) "My country, when right to support it, when wrong to make it right."

TRUE patriotism is staying true to the spirit of the Founding Fathers and our Founding Documents.

TRUE patriotism has nothing to do with the Bushie Tyrants and their clueless, mean, or evil followers.

[RoyGBiv]

19. You live up to your name ...

Well said. :-)

:thumbsup:

[tom_paine]

20. Thank you for the kind words. What I said in my post, it's why Ron Paul is a Patriot

and Nancy Pelosi is most definitely NOT.

Don't get me wrong. I disagree with Ron paul on most things, and I couldn't see voting for him for pResident unless his only opponent in the GE was a hardcore Bushie.

But I have listened to the man, and as much as I disagree with him, he fits the bill I mentioned.

Nancy Pelosi? She would have made a GREAT German Social Democrat in the Reichstag in 1933. But she is no patriot, that's for goddamned sure!

NOTE: These past years I have read much on the Rise of Nazi Germany, because we can learn so much about these last seven years by doing so. I have especiialy focused on "on the ground" accounts such as "Diary of a Man in Despair", "I Will Bear Witness", "Defying Hitler" and "They Thought They Were Free".

One thing I learned that quite astonished me, knowing the history of the German Social Democrats, how at the last moment when it was too late they tried to defy Hitler as he outlawed their party into oblivion, was that up until then, they had largely been Nancy Pelosis.

In "Defying Hitler", Sebastian Haffner recalls how, sometime in mid-1933, probably in the wake of "Nazi 9/11", the German Social Democrats got up with the Nazis in the Reichstag and proudly belted out "The Horst Wessel Song" or some other such German Bushie tune (I can't remember exactly which - read "Defying Hitler" by Sebastian Haffner to find our which song the German Nancy Pelosi and the German Harry Reid actually sang).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. "I Will Bear Witness", is the finest account of Fascism there is.

Incredible book, by an incredible, and entirely human man.

[Two Americas]

34. agreed

The diary of Victor Klemperer, yes.

The passage from the book that will haunt me forever is about an arrest in 1944, from the ever-dwindling population in the Dresden ghetto. The next morning after the arrest, the most recent of thousands and thousands of such arrests, he overheard people saying "what did he do wrong? He must have done something wrong. They wouldn't just arrest him for nothing."

I think of that every time I read people here saying that things are not so bad, and that we should not be alarmists, as though being overly alarmist or vigilant were the danger we should worry about, rather than worrying about complacency and denial.

[TransitJohn]

21. Patriot? Yes. Jingoist? Hell no.

n/t

[LaPera]

22. Yes! And always will be...a tolerant liberal caring patriot!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. No. "Patriotism is the most foolish of passions, and the passion of fools."

Schopenhauer

The thought of "loving" something as nebulous and vague an ideal as a country is downright ridiculous and a bit insulting.

The thought of killing or dying for one is even more so.

[Two Americas]

30. love of principles

Love of principles and ideals, honoring those who made tremendous sacrifices for our benefit, love of freedom, love for your family, your neighbors, your community, your fellow human beings. That is patriotism, is it not? I don't let haters and racists and bullies define patriotism for me, do you?

[Bluebear]

24. Alas, the term has been appropriated by the most jingoistic of types

The "Minutemen" trying to keep the Mexicans out, for instance. Militias. Etc. :(

And the "Patriot" Act.

[GreenTea]

26. A "patriotic" for the Constitution! "Don't Tread On Me" - Republicans have twisted and convoluted

the word (term) and meaning, to make some progressives despise and obviously not understand the meaning of the word...simply, "One who loves and defends his or her country". - Wake Up!

[Two Americas]

27. are you a concern troll?

First we need to get a Dem into the White House, THEN we can worry about patriotism and irrelevant stuff like that. What's the matter with you? What good is patriotism so long as the repukes are in power? Eyes on the prize people. Are you trying to tear down the nominee? This is just a distraction to discourage people from voting and help the Republicans.

Remember, first you win, then they fight you, then they ignore you, then they laugh at you. Let's get our priorities straight here, and see the change we want to be. Hey! You can't make omelets if you go around breaking eggs!

If things are all that bad, then how come I am not worried? Patriotism used to matter, but that was before the Internet and things have changed, and what did people back then know anyway? Are you against change? Look around and open your eyes. Things are nothing like they used to be, and it is time that our leadership reflected that.

Giants clobber Patriots anyway - just look at what happened in Congress this week.

[RoyGBiv]

29. Are you drunk?

Just asking.

[Two Americas]

32. I wish

ROFL. Sorry to mess up your thread with my inanity. I will make it up to you with an intelligent post or two. Came off of some of those FISA threads and hadn't properly decompressed yet.

[RoyGBiv]

33. Here's a beer ...

Thanks for not taking that too harshly. :)

:toast:

BTW, some of those FISA threads were partly the inspiration for this, so even though I had absolutely no intention of bringing that into it (I am actually interested in the question I posed and how people define being a patriot) I applaud your stand on the matter.

[Two Americas]

35. thanks

Have always admired your posts, and this is a good subject. I just finished David McCullough's book on Adams.

[RoyGBiv]

37. Excellent book ...

I was hesitant to watch the HBO series, but they did a fairly good job of book to film translation. One could quibble with a large number of details, but they got the general idea right.

In the larger context, it's a relatively minor thing and has nothing to do with this subject, but I was impressed that they portrayed various characters with bad teeth. Contrast that with, as an example, _Gods and Generals_, where Civil War era women in a *war zone* supposedly had perfect hair and *lipstick*.

Anyway, McCullough's bio was very good, highly recommended.

[Two Americas]

44. I was impressed

It warrants a second and possibly a third reading.

[RoyGBiv]

46. BTW ...

No, I'm not. :)

[Two Americas]

50. lol

No, I didn't think you were. I forgot the sarcasm tag is all.

:toast:

Excellent thread, thanks.

[Fox Mulder]

31. Nope.

See my other post above.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

36. I fit the Jeffersonian brand of patriotism

That when your government has run afoul of the needs of the people, it is your patriotic duty to challenge it and demand a change in direction.

[RoyGBiv]

38. That would be my definition ...

One of the reasons I asked the question is that I've seen a number of people through the primary wars and more recently express thoughts that seemed to indicate their definition of a "patriot" was an ironic one, e.g. the Moran Guy. I don't accept that definition. The Moran Guy is a moron, not a patriot. A patriot opposes his or her government when it does wrong.

Of course, there are competing definitions, and as others have noted, jingoists have taken hold of the word and defamed its meaning.

[Two Americas]

41. a distinction needs to be made

Loyalty to the country, and loyalty to the ruling class are too different things. I have noticed for a long time that most liberal activists, tending to be more upscale, define the country differently and identify with a different country than blue collar people do. Liberals will say "we" when they are talking about actions by the ruling class, and talk about the people as "they." For example, "we" invaded Iraq, and "they" are "a bunch of morons." When liberals say "America is bad" or when they say "America" (or "we") did this or that in the past they mean "the ruling class" is bad or did this or that. Blue collar people mean their family, their neighbors and their community when they say "America" or "we" and so are resistant to hearing that America is wrong, or America is bad. At the same time, blue collar people are more willing than upscale people are to seeing the rulers as "them" and to having no loyalty or affection for them, while you can see people here defending the rulers all of the time, if they have the right letter after their name, and calling the politicians part of some "we" who needs to "win." When intellectuals talk about "the history of America" they mean "the history of the ruling class" as often as not.

The two groups are in this way living in two different countries, because they define "country" differently, and so look at politics and patriotism completely differently. It is a serious disconnection between us, the intellectuals and activists on the left, and the general public. The general public picks up on the fact that we are speaking for the ruling class, siding with the ruling class (oh we have this or that quibble with various factions of the ruling class) while looking at the people with contempt. before we even start to make our arguments, we have already signaled which side of the class divide we are on. Much of the support by the general public for the right wing program is in reaction to this.

Almost every day I see people here inadvertently reveal their strong identification with the ruling class by the way they use the words "we" and "America."

[RoyGBiv]

45. Oh, that's excellent ...

Excellent insight.

I've had that sort of thought before, for a long time, and I've struggled with a way to express it. When I was younger I thought of it as a rural vs. urban thing, but that was far too simplistic and, as I have learned with time, not even accurate.

We don't talk about class a lot in this country, which is ... well I want to say unfortunate, but it's worse than that. While I'm not a Marxist or even a socialist, by a strict definition, I think these ideologies bring a lot to the table, at the very least issues that need to be considered. Your commentary is an excellent example of why we need to be aware of class tensions, not just economically, but culturally. Different subsets of the larger American culture view many things differently, use words differently, react differently. The ironic bit is that, on the whole, Americans are prone to liberalism (in the classic sense), which has been shown time and time again throughout the course of our history via both polls and our actions, but the way different classes view the meanings of words and the way they incorporate various ideologies and concepts into their thinking scatters the way they view specific policy and what that means to how they define what their nation is or should be.

And all that gets wrapped up in matters of "patriotism."

I'm probably rambling.

Anyway, thanks again for the comments. Much appreciated.

[Two Americas]

48. ah very good

I too thought that it was a rural versus urban thing for a long time, but blue collar people in Detroit and the AA people in my neighborhood in Detroit saw it the same way as rural people did. Then it dawned on me - the factory workers and others in Detroit were rural people, from all over the world, who had not yet been assimilated into what we think of as "modern America," which is expressed most clearly in the suburbanization phenomenon, I think.

There probably has never been a population so divorced from agriculture and agricultural communities, or hunting and gathering communities as far as that goes, as modern American suburbanites are. In a way, the American success model and the growth of suburbanization is founded on an urge by people to escape the past, the village, the culture and the cultural identity that sustained human existence through all time, so people can make themselves into something new and better and make communities that are not constrained by... well constrained by community... and to make them up from nothing based on "modern" and "rational" ideas.

Many people who vote Republican are not so much supporting the right wingers as they are resisting and rejecting modern suburban liberalism, however clumsily, and it is not the ideas of the political left they are resisting - not that we ever espouse or promote or fight for those anymore in the Democratic party anyway - it is the suburbanization and modernism and gentrification they are resisting. Since this insight may hold the key to restoring the New Deal coalition, moving the party to the left, and beating down the right wingers, one would think that all Democrats would be interested in looking at this, but there is amazingly violent opposition to these ideas being considered among activists.

[GreenTea]

47. But how can it be differentiated..."We and America". We are the tax payers,

the voters, "we" make up the populist. I believe most know the difference, though perhaps some may be naive enough in thought and articulating it.... still it comes down to "we", don't you think, (as "Americans") that if say BushCo decides to illegally bomb Iran. Yes, he stole the presidency and we despise him...but as Americans, collectively, it's then becomes "we" as the world indeed sees & defines us.

[Two Americas]

49. by class

The only way I can see to make a differentiation is by class. Since that topic is off limits, even among Democrats today, there is much confusion and people cannot understand why things happen in politics the way that they do. Politics is about power and wealth - who has it and who does not. Take that out of the discussion, as most modern activists do, and nothing remains.

The Republicans know this. Every single thing they do has one common denominator - it promotes the needs and desires of the wealthy and powerful few. They are relentless and consistent in this, and have been very successful. Meanwhile, we wander around in a fog, do not know what the battle is about or where the battle lines are drawn, and lose the battle because we don't even show up for it or realize that it is going on.

The wealthy and powerful few have seized control of our government and are remaking it to suit their purposes. They have so much power now that they do not even need to have Republicans in office, and can continue to successfully advance their agenda when the so-called "opposition party" holds office almost as well as they can with Republicans in office.

[GreenTea]

51. I can't disagree....My thoughts truly and entirely.....

And it has always bothered me so thoroughly, when I hear, "why can't the Dems be like the republicans, "be on the same page with each other". ("Liberal" Bill Maher for one, immediately comes to mind) "they are all over the place". Yeah, class differention breeds corruption, and collusion & exploitation inevitably are along for the ride....The republicans (though you insist on defining it as a class struggle, and you're correct) have a single goal....In so much as it becomes impossible to defeat their corporations, the main one being the MSM that they own, NOT by accident....However, (I hope) sooner or later they can only squeeze us so far...or will they continue to pacify us with our electronic toys....It's late and I too am not in a mode to offer as much as I'd like....

[tom_paine]

54. Beautifully said. I consider myself an "FDR Democrat" and I like capitalism.

The way I think of it is not to discredit the System because of what a few have done either now or the First Robber Barons at the turn of the century.

But to ignore the idea of class, especially NOW, with the wealth inequity skyrocketing and our entire nation from top to bottom embracing what are essentially the ideas of the French aristiocracy of the 1760s.

Some are worth more, some are worth less. This is nothing new since the dawn of human history, in strict financial terms. Even in Communist countries, for all their lofty impractical ideals, there was a strict heirarchy of worth and, if it could be measured properly, a wealth inequity curve as bad or worse than Imperial Amerika today.

In other words, I believe that the wealth inequity curve of 1970s America was probably "flatter" than anything the Communists, wherever they have been, have created. We can't measure it like we can here because Communist nations sort of "don't use money" and thus the data is skewed all together. For example, a Communist Party Official in the 1970s Soviet Union might have had a two massive dachas and a Zil limousine, for starters, but the way the Communists keep tabs, just like the lying Bushies full of lies, makes it impossible to measure and on paper, Comrade Bushie-like Commie makes "exactly as much as everyone else".

HAH! Communists and Bushies. They are cut from the same cloth of tyranny, they are the same kinds of people, each just uses different economic rationales to bilk the suckers and control us peasants.

But I digress. My main point was that the Old USA (1776-2000), whatever it's faults and flaws, TRIED to keep to the words "All (people) are created equal". Imeprfectly, but at least we tried.

NOW in Imperial Amerika, we accept aristocratic privilege submissively as a part of life. Examples abound every day around us. The motto of Imperial Amerika should be, if we had the guts to be honest (which we don't), "All people are created inequal and we LIKE IT THAT WAY. Fairness is for suckers." :puke:

So that while I would never embrace the loathesome tyranny of Communism for the same basic reasons I will never accept the loathesome tyranny of Bushevism, and while I am an "FDR Democrat" and an "FDR Capitalist"... to pretend there's no class, ESPECIALLY NOW, is insane and almost delusional, I think.

The same was still true during the height of the Old Republic in the 70s and early 80s, but much less so. Plus we were TRYING to make things better, and that made a lot of difference.

Now, we aren't even TRYING to make things better, we are clinging to what we have.

Which leads me to another transient human truth of life that seems to me to be axiomatic: In nations, when they stop trying to make things better, things automatically and rapidly get worse. There is no "static neutrality" in the life of nations.

Don't ask me why this is. It probably has something to do with human nature. A Ph.D. sociologist might be able to explain, but I sure can't.

I just know what I see.

But this is an excellently well-put post, Two Americas, doubly so for it's uniqueness of perspective.

It's one thing to have a vague sense of a thing; it is quite another to put it down into words of clarity and brevity that snap the picture into sharp focus, so to speak.

I thank you for this post.

:toast:

[GreenTea]

39. I agree. As clearly defined, if closely read in the Constitution, (descent) as patriotism.....

Thomas Jefferson certainly agreed and espoused on it....You must be from the "People's Republic of Eugene"....if not, still, Cheers To You!

[orleans]

40. yes. i'm a patriot. that is why i hate bush & the neocons so much.

they are killing the country i love.

[Two Americas]

42. yes

Without hesitation or qualification.

[old mark]

52. YES!!!

My Grandfather was an enemy (German) soldier in WWI. My Grandmother and Fathe, immigrated,became naturalized citizens, lived in NYC in the 1920's. My Father was able to get 4 of us kids through college, run a business, retire in his 50's.
He will be 92 next year.

Not many places in the world in which this could happen.
I love the USA, and I want to get it back in good hands.
I hate the idea that Republicans define who is a good American, or who has "values", or who is moral.
They have even controlled how WE think of ourselves and it is time for the bullshit to stop.

mark

[tekisui]

53. Yes. And a great little book "The True Patriot"

Addresses this term. The Progressives are the True Patriots. The RW hijacked the word, and the left gave it up. It is time to reclaim it.

[ileus]

55. 100% proud patriot here.

God Bless America,

[tomg]

56. I honestly don't know. I am very

committed to my region ( mid-Hudson Valley) and my local community. It is the sense of place, of family, of the past and the desire to make that place better. But there are a number of "communities," aside from my region, to which I also feel a closeness and of which I feel myself a deeply-rooted member.

To me there is a remarkable difference between love of one's community and "patriotism" ( not that they are mutually exclusive). I have always considered patriotism to be a "civic" virtue that crops up when 1) one is building a nation which involves the extension of cultural boundaries into political boundaries ( think of the relationship of England to Scotland to Wales); and 2)when one is building an empire and is in the process of integrating a number of disparate groups under one centralized administration ( Rome/ 19th cent. England).

I would be very interested in knowing when the term "patriotism" has been used extensively in our history, simply as a term in our public discourse. I would imagine that it has been used twice: when the nation was being founded and many founders saw themselves in the tradition of the early Roman Republic; and currently as we move into ( and I don't think we are there yet) the end of the Republic and the shift to empire. (It seems like Teddy Roosevelt used the term frequently, equating it to his preferred "Americanism," and he used it when he was trying to get something like a bigger Navy or Hawaii or a Canal through Nicaragua and being a patriot seems kind of like having the whole country lift weights - FDR, not so much, more community rhetoric).

When I was a kid in the 50s, I only remember the word patriotism or patriot being used on the 4th of July. I watched World War II movies obsessively( I still do, anyone else remember Picture for a Sunday Afternoon or Million Dollar Movie?). In terms of films, Americans were fighting for thier communities ( think of the classic bomber crew), the sum total of which became the "country;" Germans for the Fatherland; the Japanese the Emperor. I never heard the word "patriot" or "patriotism" used often in any of those films or, if I recall, in any speeches I have read from the time.

So ( and it took me about an hour to write this - I've been playing with translators and going from English to Korean to Swedish to Chinese), no. I am not a patriot. I don't live in a Republic ( anymore) and I don't want to be part of an empire (ever).