The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Taking back our country

Taking back our country

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Dear Arjay,

"Patriotism," wrote Samuel Johnson,
"is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
I guess he was pointing out that partiotism,
like other emotional attitudes, sometimes
becomes exaggerated or distorted.
Demands for open and public demonstrations
of loyalty are often heard in times of
national crisis. During World War I, for
example, King George V of Great Britain
changed the family name of the royal family
from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor. The name
Saxe-Coburg was German, and Britain was at
war with Germany. Then during World War II,
thousands of patriotic Japanese-Americans
were placed in detention camps because of
unreasonable fears that they might be loyal
to Japan than to the US.

Of course we can't regard critics of any
country as "questionable" patriots.
As Adlai Stevenson points out, "What were
Washington and Jefferson and Adams but
profound critics of the colonial status quo?"

We surely would be a lot poorer without the
questioning of public intellectuals like,
Bertrand Russel, Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus,
John Maynard Keyes, Herbert Marcuse, Norman Mailer,
Noam Chomsky, Jack Kerouac, Vance
Packard, John Kenneth Galbraith, and more recently
Tor Hundloe, Richard Dawkins, Henry Reynolds,
Waleed Aly, David Marr, and many others.

"Breathes there a man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heat hath ne'er within him burn'd
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandring on a foreign strand?"
(Sir Walter Scott).
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 12 July 2010 3:53:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few posters to this thread have commented on globalisation.
Not to worry, it is already ending.
Previously O had noted that both furniture and steel manufacturing
had moved back to the US from China. This was because of rising shipping costs.
Now I notice China is now buying into the US steel industry.
Hmmm is that a straw in the wind ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 12 July 2010 4:34:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy ,If you read Dr Bob bowman's article,you would have understood he was talking about being true to your fellow man.It had nothing to do with war mongering or flag waving.Being patriot has many meanings like the word love.Love can be lustful and self destructive as well as being a positive force.Being Patriot to your country means in this instance being true and faithful to your own people.Globalisation via a world Govt is a devisive totalitarian philosophy.It will be our worst nightmare.

Globalisation is not dead.The Global Reserve banking system has a strangle hold on our Govts and economies.Why did Labor go to China to borrow money when it could have been generated here and kept under control via interest rates?
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 12 July 2010 5:59:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy's apt description of patriotism historically, is spot on, but at least the Americans
have a "Bill of Rights".

I guess, you would have to support such a bill in it's entirety, if you are going to
support a bill of rights at all. Hence Dr Bowman's support for bearing arms?.
The U.S. bill of rights has it's flaws and requires further amendment.
Run that past your patriots!.

Of course freedom is not best expressed or ensured ,by, or with the barrel of a gun as proposed by the U.S bill of rights.
There is no connection between the actual civil rights a person has, and his individual capacity to defend or support them.

In fact being armed in America probably increases the possibility of being killed
but not much else.

In Australia we would have to start with a Bill of Rights and then have a "new
mainstream party" that supports it's implementation.

I doubt, that either major party would advocate or support such a proposition today.

Could and should this be a rallying point for those who feel as Arjay questions,
"do the people of Australia need their country back?". I think we do!.
Posted by thinker 2, Monday, 12 July 2010 6:18:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thinker, bearing arms is a double edged sword.In this present time in our history,thank your god that the US people still have that right, since Bush has wrought a totalitarian system of his "Patriot Act" that negates habeous corpus.The US now has "preventative denention" whereby those who are suspected of being terrorists can be incarcerated indefinitely without trial.

Now Obama wants to legalise assassination of suspected terrorists.Which part of totalitarian facism do you not understand?

Bearing arms in the USA at this present time in our history, keeps the corporate facists and their compliant oligarchs in fear of the consequences of their avarice and power lust.John Howard took away our arms after Port Author.When push comes to shove,force prevails.

If you want your freedoms,you will have to will have to fight for them.The price is eternal vigilance.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 12 July 2010 8:20:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Arjay,

I read not only the link you provided,
but I'm also familiar with Robert Bowman
and what he's advocating. Perhaps if you
re-read my earlier post - you may grasp
the points that I was trying to make.
Especially concerning the abuses of
patriotism.

The word "patriotism" comes from the Greek
word, "patris," which means "fatherland."
Its the love and loyal support of one's
country. It includes attachment to a
country's land, and people, admiration for
its customs and traditions, pride in its
history, and devotion to its welfare. The
term suggests a feeling of oneness with the
nation - that is why I also included the poem
by Sir Walter Scott in my earlier post.

As for wars and flag waving, well in wartime,
as students of history are well aware,
patriotic songs and slogans have helped unite
citizens in support of their country. Strange
though, many have said that they're prepared to
die for their country but no one ever says they're
prepared to kill for it. I guess that only confirms
the fact that while most people agree that patriotism
involves serving one's country, many disagree on how
they can best perform this service. Some might say
that the national government speaks for the country,
and that the people should therefore actively support
all government policies and actions. Others like
Bowman argue that a true patriot will speak out if
convinced that the country is following an unjust
or unwise course of action.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 12 July 2010 8:36:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy