If someone were to tell me “patriotism is the best thing ever- not dangerous at all! Just ask George Kateb or Frederick Douglas!” I would have to tell them that they were indeed very wrong in making that claim. According to George Kateb, patriotism is, in fact, a mistake. Kateb claims that patriotism is “a grave moral error and its source is typically a state of mental confusion” (Kateb, 902). This claim will be farther explained throughout this essay. Frederick Douglas, who also has ideas on patriotism, but not as clearly defined as Kateb’s argument, states that Americans boast about their love of liberty, superior civilization, and pure Christianity, but the entire nation is “solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three million of its own countrymen” (Douglas, 53).
To argue against patriotism, one must first understand what patriotism is. Kateb defines patriotism as a love for one’s country. This love of country means that a patriot shows a readiness to kill or to die for his or her own country (Kateb, 906). If everyone in America was asked whether or not they were a patriot, I would believe that many people would say they are. However, if one was to tell an American what Kateb’s definition of patriotism was, I believe that many would most likely rethink or second-guess their answer. I cannot honestly state that I am ready to die or kill for America. This patriotism would also mean that a strong dislike for all other countries would be present in those who claim to be patriots. People who claim to be patriots inherently disregard morality (Kateb, 909). Countries have militaries; countries do not give consideration to its enemies. Kateb believes that you can love people without hating others, but one cannot love an abstract idea like a country without hating other countries because countries are in competition for power and resources (Kateb, 909). Patriotism can help people feel a sense of belonging or to have group identity. Patriotism, according to Kateb, is “dedicated to preserving and expressing or asserting the group’s identity in agonistic or competitive or antagonistic political deeds that are violent or threaten to become so” (Kateb, 922). To talk about willingness to die or kill for something, we must discuss abstractions and principles. Abstractions are things that only exist as ideas, and because a country is a compound of few actual and mostly imaginary ingredients, it is an abstraction (Kateb, 907). Principles are fundamental truths that serve as foundations for a system. While there are some principles in America, there are mostly abstractions. If one is willing to die for his or her country then they are willing to die or kill for a mere abstraction. The problem with being willing to die or kill for an abstraction is that one is willing to die or kill for something that is not really there; it does not exist. A country is just an abstract idea when it comes down to it; an abstraction full of violence, poverty, hunger, and abuse of power. Kateb argues against Maurizio Viroli’s defense of patriotism. …show more content…
Viroli’s idea is that patriotism is not love for one’s country, but love for free republican institutions. The principle that people can connect to patriotism is freedom, while freedom is the principle; patriotism is only the driving force behind the principle (Kateb, 911). I would have to argue from my own philosophy that, if patriotism is a love for free republican institutions, then not everyone in the world can show patriotism because not all countries are built on free republican institutions. Since not everyone in the world could be patriotic, that means that it cannot be a principle and it has to be an abstraction. It is simply an idea for the love of free republican institutions. To help support Viroli, Kateb talks about slavery in the United States. He asks if during the time of slavery in the United States, did the high political principle of freedom elicit a dedication for its own sake, apart from its entwinement with patriotism (Kateb, 911)? I do agree that it can be respected aside from being tied with patriotism, but I think, as Kateb did, that Lincoln used patriotism as a persuasive method in ending slavery. This is a good place to tie in Frederick Douglas’s
To argue against patriotism, one must first understand what patriotism is. Kateb defines patriotism as a love for one’s country. This love of country means that a patriot shows a readiness to kill or to die for his or her own country (Kateb, 906). If everyone in America was asked whether or not they were a patriot, I would believe that many people would say they are. However, if one was to tell an American what Kateb’s definition of patriotism was, I believe that many would most likely rethink or second-guess their answer. I cannot honestly state that I am ready to die or kill for America. This patriotism would also mean that a strong dislike for all other countries would be present in those who claim to be patriots. People who claim to be patriots inherently disregard morality (Kateb, 909). Countries have militaries; countries do not give consideration to its enemies. Kateb believes that you can love people without hating others, but one cannot love an abstract idea like a country without hating other countries because countries are in competition for power and resources (Kateb, 909). Patriotism can help people feel a sense of belonging or to have group identity. Patriotism, according to Kateb, is “dedicated to preserving and expressing or asserting the group’s identity in agonistic or competitive or antagonistic political deeds that are violent or threaten to become so” (Kateb, 922). To talk about willingness to die or kill for something, we must discuss abstractions and principles. Abstractions are things that only exist as ideas, and because a country is a compound of few actual and mostly imaginary ingredients, it is an abstraction (Kateb, 907). Principles are fundamental truths that serve as foundations for a system. While there are some principles in America, there are mostly abstractions. If one is willing to die for his or her country then they are willing to die or kill for a mere abstraction. The problem with being willing to die or kill for an abstraction is that one is willing to die or kill for something that is not really there; it does not exist. A country is just an abstract idea when it comes down to it; an abstraction full of violence, poverty, hunger, and abuse of power. Kateb argues against Maurizio Viroli’s defense of patriotism. …show more content…
Viroli’s idea is that patriotism is not love for one’s country, but love for free republican institutions. The principle that people can connect to patriotism is freedom, while freedom is the principle; patriotism is only the driving force behind the principle (Kateb, 911). I would have to argue from my own philosophy that, if patriotism is a love for free republican institutions, then not everyone in the world can show patriotism because not all countries are built on free republican institutions. Since not everyone in the world could be patriotic, that means that it cannot be a principle and it has to be an abstraction. It is simply an idea for the love of free republican institutions. To help support Viroli, Kateb talks about slavery in the United States. He asks if during the time of slavery in the United States, did the high political principle of freedom elicit a dedication for its own sake, apart from its entwinement with patriotism (Kateb, 911)? I do agree that it can be respected aside from being tied with patriotism, but I think, as Kateb did, that Lincoln used patriotism as a persuasive method in ending slavery. This is a good place to tie in Frederick Douglas’s