Ask Not What You Can Do For Your Country (Part 2)

[Dario]

It pains me to acknowledge that there are some poor, deluded fools out there who are convinced that the nation-state is to be looked upon as some kind of friendly patriarch who benevolently watches over us all. “This country has given me everything I have”, they declare, choking back grateful tears. This is a typical side-effect of the personification of nations which takes place within the patriotic mindset, which serves to muster up a personal sympathy for the homeland.

“Britain believes this-and-that-and-the-other!”
“America has vowed that A, B and C!”
“Iran is threatening something-something!”

The way in which we describe national developments has us bizarrely speaking of countries as if they were actual people. This makes it easier to construe international events as dumbed-down melodramas between narrowly-defined personas.

This allegiance to the nation that ‘cares for you’, as if the country’s structure was...

Click here to read the entire review

[MarkMono]

Take it you're talking about regular infantry here, most marines I know have at least a little bit of a monarchy complex.

(Interesting aside: The Thatcher administration relaxed regular army recruiting standards for the first time since the second world war in 1982 in a pretty shameless attempt to both stem criticism over mass unemployment and solve the football hooligan problem. This is why today most advertising is based upon bettering yourself and getting a career.)

[Big_Boss]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

Take it you're talking about regular infantry here.

Most marines I know have at least a little bit of a monarchy complex.

I've always viewed the Marines as a bit of a Navy thing. But most guys I know that have thought about going marines are the ones that always want to be out there on the front taking all the shit. Real war-junkies, you know.

[MarkMono]

Originally Posted by Big_Boss

I've always viewed the Marines as a bit of a Navy thing.

I'm sorry, but if you'd said that in front of some of the marines I know, you'd probably now be off your feet having your head battered off a wall with thumbs in your eye sockets.

Mind you, thats why I don't talk to the majority of them anymore. I get uncomfortable around what I see as unprovoked violence. As I said, the standard of regular infantry isn't what it once was. That cunt Old Man Metal aside, mechanics are the only soldiers I have time for these days.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Dario

I'd make the distinction that I'm not singling out specific governments or nations in my description, but simply listing common traits within democratic capitalist governments in general which are prerequisites, with regards to how they must function, and as such, does to an extent constitute what one might poetically describe as an 'attitude' of sorts. Identifying those particulars doesn't necessarily equate with constructing an actual persona, and certainly not to the degree which was being discussed. Insofar as personifying terms are used (which do admittedly arise), they serve more to raise the question of precisely what criteria people are using to construct this kind, gentle persona in the first place?

Fair enough I suppose. I shall modify my bugbear to be: that stating that the people you are arguing against (Patriots) hold simple beliefs about systems of government based on some sort of anthropomorphic personification but you hold a belief based upon "how they must function" is not (to my mind) the best way to address the issue. If an intelligent patriot were to come along (if such a thing does indeed exist - by the definition so far put forward by these articles I suspect you might contest that so I will simply say a patriot capable of arguing and debating to a reasonable standard) they could (I think) quite easily boil this down to a subjective back and forth.

I do also think that the focus on the war does make this article seem less about general issues surrounding patriotism and more about the recent (and ongoing) conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly the arguments probably apply to conflicts past (and indeed future) however this is probably more to do with it being the middle article (You know like lethal weapon two where they bring down Apartheid) in the series and thus while the first as an introduction stands on its own this one perhaps needs the next one to bring everything together to a conclusion of sorts.

[Big_Boss]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

I'm sorry, but if you'd said that in front of some of the marines I know, you'd probably now be off your feet having your head battered off a wall with thumbs in your eye sockets.

Mind you, thats why I don't talk to the majority of them anymore. I get uncomfortable around what I see as unprovoked violence.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. The main reason I see it as a Navy thing is because of their very name "Marine" instant association with water and, to my mind at least, anything military on the water is a Navy thing.

But yeah, the guys do tend to be tough as nails and have extremely short fuses. A bit like the paras.

[MarkMono]

Well, since you're purely speaking in word association, how sane would you expect anyone called a 'para' to be?

[Big_Boss]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

Well, since you're purely speaking in word association, how sane would you expect anyone called a 'para' to be?

True, anyone crazy enough to jump out a plane into the middle of a warzone deserves a wide berth. TBH though, the guys going for the parachute regiments at selection were decent guys. Guess that'll change once they get their war faces.

[Dario]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Fair enough I suppose. I shall modify my bugbear to be: that stating that the people you are arguing against (Patriots) hold simple beliefs about systems of government based on some sort of anthropomorphic personification but you hold a belief based upon "how they must function" is not (to my mind) the best way to address the issue. If an intelligent patriot were to come along (if such a thing does indeed exist - by the definition so far put forward by these articles I suspect you might contest that so I will simply say a patriot capable of arguing and debating to a reasonable standard) they could (I think) quite easily boil this down to a subjective back and forth.

I do also think that the focus on the war does make this article seem less about general issues surrounding patriotism and more about the recent (and ongoing) conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly the arguments probably apply to conflicts past (and indeed future) however this is probably more to do with it being the middle article (You know like lethal weapon two where they bring down Apartheid) in the series and thus while the first as an introduction stands on its own this one perhaps needs the next one to bring everything together to a conclusion of sorts.

No, I'd intended the issue of patriotism being used as an incentive for war in general. Iraq/Afghanistan came up due to TSR's criticisms. There are brief, vague mention of recent political climate in part 3, as well as a couple of phrases about recent legislation and media developments in part 1 when discussing standards of freedom and justice, but those are really minor points to tie the arguments into currently relevant areas a bit more.
The main reason for splitting the piece up into three installments was really only down to its length; I would prefer for it to be viewed as a whole rather than three parts standing on their own. Just works better than way.

[endless psych]

The idea of Iraq and Afghanistan was planted in my head when I read the relevent bits in the article not because of TSR's comments. It may not have been your intent but its the impression that I got. That said that could be more to do with it being the nearest example of conflict readily avaliable.

[Big_Boss]

I'll admit Dario, when I read this at first I saw it as an attack on people who love their country (not necessarily their government) and so I got a bit uppidty and on the defensive. But after reading it over a few times I tend to agree with most of what you're saying.

Originally Posted by endless psych

The idea of Iraq and Afghanistan was planted in my head when I read the relevent bits in the article not because of TSR's comments. It may not have been your intent but its the impression that I got. That said that could be more to do with it being the nearest example of conflict readily avaliable.

/agreed

[Dario]

Originally Posted by endless psych

The idea of Iraq and Afghanistan was planted in my head when I read the relevent bits in the article not because of TSR's comments. It may not have been your intent but its the impression that I got. That said that could be more to do with it being the nearest example of conflict readily avaliable.

It's probably because 'support the troops', as the terminology in which that particular sentiment is expressed, gets used a lot recently on the subject of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's perfectly applicable in other cases, but the phrase itself seems to tie it down to recent events by association, perhaps.