What is a true patriot?

Patriot - One who loves, supports, and defends one's country

Is pride what makes a patriot?

I ask, as I am truly curious as to what defines a true patriot.

I'm not sure I could call myself a true patriot as I cannot claim to be overly proud regarding the history of my country, but I am still British.

Looking back in history, the British, in fact, more specifically, the English have caused a great deal of upset, conflict and destruction of which I would prefer to be disassociated with.

So, if you don't mind, whichever country you hail from, what is your take on being patriotic?

So, what is a true patriot?

So, what is a true patriot?


Its really a fine line between love and hate. Our founding fathers where both a patriot and a terroist.

If we the people see the goverment unfit are we Pat-riot or a Terroist?

Its a very good queston, it all depends on who you ask. Now for sure an outside source, not native to the states, is a terroist and not a pat-riot.

I am talking strickly about homegrown.

"Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy"-George Bernard Shaw


Omne solum forti patria est

what's a true patriot?

not sure, nazi's were patriots, kamikaze bombers were patriots, insurgents are patriots, soldiers are patriots, politicians are patriots.

I love my country and I support our good deeds and defend us when I feel a cause a justified, but I also speak up against things that I don't agree with in this country, so am I a patriot or not? I don't know.

i read the wikipedia entry, and it's still up in the air for me...I guess patriotism is a subjective thing and there is no real true answer as what is a true patriot.

en.wikipedia.org...

I have found these two definitions of Patriot:

From Merriam-Webster:
Patriot - One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests
From American Heritage:
Patriot - One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

From Merrriam-Webster:
patriotism - love for or devotion to one's country

From Wikipedia:
Patriotic Act - Generally, any selfless act that directly benefits the nation is considered patriotic.
Symbolic acts - In addition, symbolic acts are also often considered to be patriotic. Such acts would include displaying the national flag, singing the national anthem, participating in a mass rally, placing a patriotic bumper sticker on one's vehicle, or any other way of publicly proclaiming one’s allegiance to the nation.

I find this interesting, because by Merriam Webster's definition of patriot I am not one, because although I love my country and support its interests, I don't "support its authority" (if that means blind allegiance to the administration.) I do, however support and defend the Declaration and the Constitution, which discourage blind allegiance to the authority.

I am however, clearly patriotic and I perform patriotic acts. I do not, however perform many symbolic acts.

I don't think pride has a lot to do with it. Although I am proud to be an American, I'm not proud of our behavior in the world right now.

Thanks Spittincobra, I agree, perspective and interpretation play greatly on the definition from each individual.

And it's that perspective I wish to understand a great deal more about.

pheonixhasrisin, I think from what you quote, that you do not favour the patriotic?, could you elaborate on your own perspective?

[edit on 27-7-2005 by Koka]

Originally posted by worldwatcher
what's a true patriot?

not sure, nazi's were patriots, kamikaze bombers were patriots, insurgents are patriots, soldiers are patriots, politicians are patriots.

I love my country and I support our good deeds and defend us when I feel a cause a justified, but I also speak up against things that I don't agree with in this country, so am I a patriot or not? I don't know.

Good points.

So, would you say a true patriot follows blindly and without question, as the most important issue is the survival or growth of the country in which they were born?

Can a foreigner/immigrant become a true patriot to the country in which they now reside?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I do, however support and defend the Declaration and the Constitution, which discourage blind allegiance to the authority.

I'll have to double check this as I really have no idea what is stated within the Declaration of Independance or the US Constitution, but if true is a very interesting tidbit.

Maybe someone who knows these documents better could enlighten me?

May I also ask people from other countries to please put their views forward with regards to being a true patriot, I don't want to focus on the US.

[edit on 27-7-2005 by Koka]

I forget exactly who said this, I think it was Jefferson or someone of the like:

"A true patriot is one who is willing to defend his country from the people who rule it"

The best definition I've heard for a patriot--and I forget who it was that stated it, but it was on an AM talk radio lecture/speech, wish I could remember--is someone who does something they honestly feel will benefit their nation as a whole. This doesn't necessarily mean following orders blindly and being a "yes man" serving the president/prime minister/dictator/whatever no matter what the situation.

As most of the above posters stated, it's still a matter of perspective as well. You can do something that you feel is greatly to the benefit of the nation and see yourself as a patriot, the person next to you may see that as the worst possible thing anyone could do. Technically speaking, under that above definition, someone could perform the most heinous crime and consider themselves a patriot. Oswald could be considered a patriot by some--for either pulling the trigger or taking the fall, whichever side of the coin you follow. There may be some that think that was exactly what we needed. I'm not one of them, for the record, but it's still an opinion call.

Likewise, many people may consider the soldiers fighting in Iraq right now as the most un-patriotic Americans ever. They could make an argument that the war is unjust and is giving America a bad name. And bearing that in mind, by protesting the war--even to the point of viciously insulting the soldiers--they are patriots under the above definition--they feel that will be of benefit to the nation. Again, for the record I'm not one of these people, just using the example.

It's all perspective. "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist." (I forget who originally stated that one as well )

"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by Koka
pheonixhasrisin, I think from what you quote, that you do not favour the patriotic?, could you elaborate on your own perspective? [edit on 27-7-2005 by Koka]

I can try.

I personally find nothing worthwhile in the nation state, so to be proud of it would betray my true feelings. Nations, borders, empires are ever changing, mutating. To love something man made, which is based upon such arbitrary criteria seems insane to me.

As someone esle mentioned above, pride has alot to do with it as well. I also have a problem with this (just like racial pride). Pride, IMHO-should be reserved for things that one has control over. To be proud of something that one has no control over, tells me that the person does not have much in his life to be proud of, so they look outside themselves for sources of pride (i.e-nation, race, etc).


Depending upon the exact moment in history, and upon which continent you were born, one derrives their "country"of origin. This should be something to love? Something to be proud of? Something to die for? Something as fleeting as this surely deserves no love from me. I try to reserve my adoration for that which I perceive as more permanent, more substantial.

[edited for additional point, and spelling]

[edit on 27-7-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

[edit on 27-7-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

phoenixhasrisin, I'm not knocking your point of view; you make some good points, and it's definitely not a perspective I've ever considered--I appreciate the enlightenment. But at the same time, what can be defined as "more permanent and substantial"?

Everything is in constant motion, constantly changing. Even one's perception of any higher beings is constantly being molded by how one interprets the events of their life. The life of a friend, relative, or spouse, is certainly more fleeting than most any nation that has ever existed; are they something you should love? Looking in the natural world (whereas you pointed out "to love something man-made"), even without man's help forests get burned down by lightning, mountains move over time, seas rise and fall. There is nothing that is permanent.

Generally speaking, I don't love the actual land I was born in as a physical entity. I love the ideals that I personally believe are held in that land, and the fact that they are constantly changing is something else that I love. The dirt under the hospital I was born in is the same dirt as anywhere else in the world. There's nothing special about that dirt. There's nothing special about the boundaries we've set for the nation either, other than the general respect that it (sometimes) has from other people who have set similar boundaries. It's all about the ideas. It's all about the concept of "American", or "British" or "French".

Those concepts are what define one's nation, and one doesn't necessarily have to stick with them either. Some of the most patriotic Americans weren't born on the same dirt that I was. Some of the most patriotic members of other nations were born on the same dirt. Some on both sides of that spectrum have never even left their original soil.

Sure, borders change on almost a daily basis. The ideals one holds dear often change more frequently, and the ideals I hold dear as an American aren't necessarily the ones that are being represented by the American government. I still consider both my ideals and the government "American" though. I still hold true to those ideals as best as I can. And I still consider myself somewhat patriotic whenever I do something to uphold them regardless of whether the current administration would feel the same or not.

I hope my little ramble didn't go off topic too much, and again phoenix, I'm not knocking your perspective. It got my brain going for a bit (for better or worse), and that's always something I personally appreciate whether anyone else can tolerate the results or not

if this guy isn't a patriot, then I don't kow who is









[edit on 27-7-2005 by GrandCourtJester]

The word used to have a decidedly negatiove connotation, but that's all changed now.

It's a good thing to be a patriot in this day and age, apparently.

This is a huge departure from back in the day, when someone who was patriotic could expect scorn and ridicule.

I don't know why the word changed connotations exactly, but I think it has something to do with hubris becoming a virtue as well.

Ah well, I guess it's too much to ask that people research the etymology of a word before applying it liberally (no pun intended).

Originally posted by MCory1
phoenixhasrisin, I'm not knocking your point of view; you make some good points, and it's definitely not a perspective I've ever considered--I appreciate the enlightenment. But at the same time, what can be defined as "more permanent and substantial"?

Not to be a wordsmith, but i did say what I PERCEIVE to be more permanent. Of course change is the only constant, but believe it or not there is alot of truth to the statement "the more things change the more they change the same". What I perceive to be more permanent is truly insignifigant, but just to give you an idea: Mankinds general thirst for knowledge, mankinds exploratory nature, A mothers love for a child, The bond between true friends, etc, etc. This is just what I consider more permanent, and unchanging, and worthy of adoration. One last thing that I find unchanging, and worth adoration is mans survival, we were around long before any nation EVER existed, and we will be here LONG after.

Generally speaking, I don't love the actual land I was born in as a physical entity. I love the ideals that I personally believe are held in that land, and the fact that they are constantly changing is something else that I love. The dirt under the hospital I was born in is the same dirt as anywhere else in the world. There's nothing special about that dirt. There's nothing special about the boundaries we've set for the nation either, other than the general respect that it (sometimes) has from other people who have set similar boundaries. It's all about the ideas. It's all about the concept of "American", or "British" or "French".

Nations can not have ideals, only people can. If you love ideals it is because those are the ideals you love, and I would wager that your nation plays a very minor role in that. Take a poll and you will find that most peoples ideals are very similar, this being the case, how can you say that nation has anything to do with it.

Some of the most patriotic Americans weren't born on the same dirt that I was. Some of the most patriotic members of other nations were born on the same dirt. Some on both sides of that spectrum have never even left their original soil.

I agree completely which is why I find something soo subjective so utterly useless.

Sure, borders change on almost a daily basis. The ideals one holds dear often change more frequently, and the ideals I hold dear as an American aren't necessarily the ones that are being represented by the American government. I still consider both my ideals and the government "American" though. I still hold true to those ideals as best as I can. And I still consider myself somewhat patriotic whenever I do something to uphold them regardless of whether the current administration would feel the same or not.

Now here you should think. If a country is not (IMHO NEVER has) living up to it's ideals, then can it truly say that those are it's ideals?



[edit on 27-7-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

Originally posted by Koka

I'll have to double check this as I really have no idea what is stated within the Declaration of Independance or the US Constitution, but if true is a very interesting tidbit.

Maybe someone who knows these documents better could enlighten me?

Sorry. This thread got moved and I couldn't find it.

From the Declaration of Independence:
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.

My interpretation: We vote in the government and give them the power to secure our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that if they become destructive of these rights, it is our right to change the government or get rid of it and get a new one that will do its job right.

From the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

My interpretation: If and when the government's actions make it clear that the people's rights are not being respected, being abused, and the leadership is using absolute authority and acting as a tyrant, it is our right and DUTY to get rid of them and vote in a new one.

The Constitution says how the government is to be chosen and structured and power distributed across the branches of government. Plus it outlines the specific rights of the people. There is no one phrase that explains this concept. It's written throughout.

The Declaration and the Constitution can both be studied on this website:
Source

Perception is the key. What might be thought of as patriotic from one perspective could also be construed as anarchy depending upon which side of that fence you straddled.
To me, being patriotic is feeling in oneself the NEED to do for your country, and for your fellow countrymen to the point of disregard for yourself.
It defies logic to throw your body on a grenade and yet it had been done. A true patriot is in essence a hero in the making.

Some excellent posts here, much appreciated.

Thanks Benevolent Heretic, it would be interesting to see if anyone interprets those statements any other way. If they can indeed be interpreted in any other way.

phoenixhasrisin & MCory1, good discussion, nice depth....

What I get from the thread in general is that being a patriot, is doing the right thing.

Which, obviously, interpretation and perception, will decide what sort of patriot you will be.

As many have said the general definition of pattriotism has changed, also has its context.

To me there are two types of people that call themselves patriots with some middle ground.

One the person that blindly follows their goverment no matter what they do saying they are patriotic because they are helping the country, by doing what it needs.

The other a person that questions their goverment on matters which they think are wrong because they beleive they are helping the country, by stopping it from doing something wrong.

And in that respect they both are patriots, but the first is also a nationalist.

Nazi's, and Roman's were both Patriots and Nationalists. Its the Nationalist viewpoint that got them in trouble.

This is a true patriot: