Patriotism ills

I have a problem with Patriotism.

More often than not we find the use of patriotism entwined with attributes of decency and good character. We see it in all presidential candidates and see it usually as an excuse for generals, sergeants and other leading figures in the army for when their will for the cause is questioned, or even when something went wrong, so used as a defence mechanism to win favour. But patriotism is a guise for ignorance and lack of foresight to the events actually occurring. It blankets the mainstream in a word which to them seems honourable and righteous. Nothing matters but the prosperity of the state/empire. The problem is that a country is made of all kinds of people, some you like and others you don't – a propensity to band together comes from a curious predisposition to unite under one banner and serve the place you were born in.

My challenge is that countries are a limitation and it is arguably far in ones own favour to broaden reaches into uniting under a common theme and not a birthplace. The world has dramatically changed in the time that these countries first raised their flags, none more so than in the past century. Travel, communication and information are so attainable that the psuedo-borders of country lines becomes somewhat irrelevant.

It is common sense to want the best from the nation/place you are situated – doing so will likely lead to the environment being more amiable towards better living. However, when this violates the basic tenants of 'other' groups and considers oneself at a higher grade than these groups, this bias is destructive and can lead to racism as well as moral infringements. We are better because we are us, and they are worse because they are not us and do things differently. This sentiment is the basic cause for destruction and deaths between nations.

So what of patriotism? This is the idea that the patriot believes his nation is the best and will argue on principal for this fact. Will put country above him/herself and has justification for certain acts on the basis that patriotism is an ultimate good. Soldiers are canonised and praised for having fought on behalf of the people and martyred when death bequeaths them. Frequently in debate foreign affairs comes up, and for most this is a touchy subject. Why should we give so much money oversees when we have our own problems? Or, This country is bad because they may have reason to attack us or another country, therefore we should get involved before this happens (ultimately becoming that which they were trying to stop). The current debate is over the issues of the middle East; Iraq, Ian and Syria. Beginning with the west destabilising the system, then 9/11 happening, then the invasion of Iraq, to the fear of Iran with nuclear weapons to Syria's occupation by ISIS. The consequences of this has been massive, with mass migration and the conception of ISIS largely as a bi-product of the 'war on terror' in the middle east over the past couple of decades. Al Baghdadi is effectively the offspring of this war.

Anyway, patriotism is a particularly bad concept when viewing the world in its entirety. It casts too much emphasis on outdoing its neighbour and destroying them if we can't understand them. It's almost like a kid bully starting a fight with the intellectual nerd kid who was harmlessly getting on with his/her own thing, but was seen as a target for the fact that this kid could do all of the bully's homework. Resource acquisition is at the very root of war. Explanations and reasons for a country getting involved in another's business should be made logically, and not through fear-mongering and a complete lack of empathy for the 'other'.

History of people shows a bias for family leads more likely to the continuation of ones genes to offspring. Tribes against other tribes in war fought over resources, but more importantly fought for the survival of ones own. I'm not saying that it is correct to not be defensive as a nation, but it should be managed on the basis of defence, and not a miss-appropration of moral ideals; in relation to the state ones against, where offence is lead. True, in the world, there needs to be a level of conduct which is managed between nations, and consequences should indeed be put in place for ones causing evils. But you need to be careful when orchestrating such plans, and not just throw around loaded words such as terrorism, and nuclear weapons. Above all communication through negotiation needs to take place. In the event that this does not pay off then embargo's need to be threatened, and in the even that this doesn't work, then further steps should be made. However, it needs to be remembered that any nation is comprised of civilians who are very much not involved with the political drama. Also, it needs to be understood that gain from such conflicts should only be made on moral accounts and not on anything tenable above relationships. Casting one nations teachings/religion/format to another should be kept at bay, and only the code of practice between states should be articulated. Advancement of any nation takes time, and to force it often than not destabilises the framework of the nation as a whole. Because we like our lives doesn't mean that other nations would like it also. There are emphasis' on different ideals, and some accept spiritual abundance greater than material and vice versa.

Patriotism is a loaded word, and the extremes of which lead to a person become more intolerant to others. It's important to measure tolerance as an important attribute and intolerance as a disease. This is why I'm not a patriot, but someone who sees decision making as something which outreaches the borders of borders and see tolerance as the ultimate good that our world could hold onto.