I suppose believing chauvinism is a preserve of the West is an expression of patriotism. Loving one's country usually entails hating someone else's. Patriots are idiots for the most part, wherever they're from. Inconvenient truths are incompatible with self-glorification. No better place to see this play out than the politics forum.
Since nationalism and the model of the nation state is a western concept I would agree it is a preserve of Western patriotism. And actually no it doesn't. Just ask the Swiss or the Finns. The concept of our nation is better than yours is based on a glorified history which applies to states which focus on power and manipulation and not on social responsibility. Norway is a perfect example.
Again focusing so much on America and its evils is a really bad thing. Don't be a typical Pakistani.
[quote]
The standard line societies at war use to clamp down on critical speech. It's difficult to understand what anyone gets out of such simple-minded loyalties to convention. If everyone thought like you no one would've had the balls to oppose Vietnam, confront national myths, or whistle-blow corruption. The dissenting minority is what holds power accountable, what keeps democratic societies from rotting.
Embedded journalist - proud patriot, not arrogant, happy to toe the majority line.
Independent journalist - subversive traitor, arrogant, happy to be a pain in the ass.
[/QUOTE]
Since again we are being US-centric that dissenting minority was silent and absent from 2001 to 2006. It only started its cry for reason when the body bags started coming home. It wasn't any form of heroic salvation. It was selfish.
Also note that the dissenting minority is usually not in power when it is dissenting. Most dissenters regarding the wars are democrats. They weren't in power during the Bush Administration. However when it comes to the Obama administration there is no dissent from democrats vis a vis the drone war, the establishment of new bases in Uganda, Djibouti and I believe it was Kenya or the silence on Bahrain and Syria. A majority of the dissenting minority holding power accountable don't want the Obama administration to over throw the Assad regime. While the majority who support national myths, self-glorification and are "true american patriots" want military action.
^but you must explain how the peoples of different nations should behave in a lala land....... saying stuff about amreekans make you exactly ''arrogant chauvenist prick'' :D
That was a pseudo theocracy. Imperialists yes, but not a theocracy. As far as I recall, Bush didn't pass any blasphemy laws.
Who said you need to pass blasphemy laws to make something blasphemous? The simple fact that the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and countless other US media institutions toed the US line on Raymond Davis speaks volumes about the lasting effect the Bush Administration had on "dissenting opinions".
After all it was the Guardian and the Independent who openly stated that he was a CIA spy and the US media was conspiring with the government to cover it up.
Who said you need to pass blasphemy laws to make something blasphemous? The simple fact that the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and countless other US media institutions toed the US line on Raymond Davis speaks volumes about the lasting effect the Bush Administration had on "dissenting opinions".
After all it was the Guardian and the Independent who openly stated that he was a CIA spy and the US media was conspiring with the government to cover it up.
That the mainstream media is a mouth piece for the white house, does not change the fact that there was, is, opposition to the government in the US. Media bias for preserving the imperial status quo is not the same as outright blasphemy laws. We should try to remain unbiased when criticizing either the US or Pakistan. Both have their own faults.
Anyway, the original point was that dissent is necessary, in any country, in order to keep the government in check. Are you disagreeing with this?
You do realize that by your example New Zealand, England, Australia are all Theocracies right? Because they all have Blasphemy laws.
Dissent is not. Freedom of thought and expression is.
The blasphemy law in England is obsolete as far as I recall, and any plans to reinstate it would be to include all faiths. The same can hardly be said of Pakistan. We are woefully behind the West in terms of freedom of thought regarding religion. I'm not familiar with New Zealand or Australia.
Journalistic, peaceful dissent is a by product of freedom of thought and expression so we are basically agreed.
The blasphemy law in England is obsolete as far as I recall, and any plans to reinstate it would be to include all faiths. The same can hardly be said of Pakistan. We are woefully behind the West in terms of freedom of thought regarding religion. I'm not familiar with New Zealand or Australia.
Journalistic, peaceful dissent is a by product of freedom of thought and expression so we are basically agreed.
It isn't obsolete. Laws aren't just obsolete, they are either removed or in place.
Again changing the parameters of discussions. Journalistic, peace dissent is one aspect of freedom of thought and expression. But that no means keeps the government in check. If that were the case the media of India and Pakistan would be the hall marks of true dissent. We both know that is not true.
Freedom of thought and expressions means simply that you can do and say what you wish. Dissent if you want. Support if you want. But nobody has the right to tell you otherwise. That is what keeps a democracy in check. We have seen 8 years of Bush and what the lack of freedom of expression and thought can do to dissenting views.
Not sure where to start. Reading your dialogue with Ghost it sounds like you enjoy arguing for the sake of it. Having the last word seems to be the point. I'm properly distracted now, and that's half the battle won. Props on pulling a Diwana. =)
Not going to address all your tangents, but attributing dissent to Democrats doesn't make sense. Democrats don't even pretend to be dissenters. The liberal class is dead here - has been for awhile now. However a genuine Left does exist; it's small but robust. Take the handful of citizens from the Occupy Movement who sued Obama over the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) earlier this year - they won against all odds. But this is besides the point. I brought up dissent to offer critical patriotism as an alternative to unconditional patriotism. You have a problem with ABCDs/BBCDs/CBCDs practicing patriotism, I have a problem with it generally. You're comfortable calling fellow Pakistanis unpatriotic, but you'll appeal to Bernard Shaw to highlight the hubris of patriotism. I don't need to point out the irony.
Still don't know why dissenting from the majority is arrogant. Not sure how we went from the pitfalls of patriotism to America being selfish. I simply asked why you were selectively applying Shaw's quote. Your bizarre retort : Pakistani patriots don't exist. Are you including yourself? Firstly, I don't know that preferring stability over dysfunction makes people unpatriotic. Blame Maslow the next time you express the desire to be re-stationed somewhere safer. Truth is, most people don't see the need to bleed it out (Foo Fighters reference ... props if you recall the song). Most people don't want to foment revolution, they don't want to live and die to make a moral point. They want a white picket fence and 2.5 kids. They want to settle down, procreate and lead insular lives. If this is about the moral high ground, you can have it if you've never left Pakistan out of choice and/or you've renounced foreign citizenship. Secondly, it doesn't make sense to condemn love-it-or-leave-it honkies, but get angry at fellow Pakistanis who acknowledge their dirty laundry. Why is it acceptable to discourage dissent at home but call out jingoistic Westerners doing the same? This is why I say patriotism is universally retarded; it's an emotional reflex, you can't 'reason' with it. Finally, the dissent quote is old, I assumed you were familiar with its context. MLK argued dissent is necessary. Saleem Shahzad died pursuing it. RIP.
As much as I enjoy your sarcasm you'll have to admit I'm an equal-opportunity hater. I live on the mental fringes of both societies. You can't say the same because you want to hang onto your patriotism while denying others theirs.
Since you brought me personally into the discussion, there is one thing you should realize is that I don’t fit into neatly defined boxes. Rather I aim to restructure the definitions. And since you brought me up I will explain what kind of a patriot I am. My patriotism is linked to social and government responsibility. Do I want Pakistan to prosper? Do I want people to look at Pakistan and be envious? Absolutely. Do I want that to be built in a military history of exerting control and manipulating people and nations? Nope. That colonial era dogma ended a good 15 years ago. The US and Russia have yet to figure that out. Most EU countries have.
My patriotism is focused on the well being of the people, the nation within its internationally marked boundaries. I want our exports to surge because that means more gainful employment at home. That means more literacy and education for Pakistan’s youth. I want our government to be responsible for its actions because then I can support it with more than just taxes. That is my patriotism. The idea or notion that patriotism is linked with the view of the nation internationally and actions taken militarily is archaic and irresponsible. Pakistan should model itself on Switzerland, Singapore, Norway etc. Nation states that place the importance of their people as paramount.
As for dissent its like saying Mandela was dissenting. Asking for basic human rights is not dissent. If that was the case then everybody is akin to MLK. Including the Tuareg rebels. I am specific in my comments because in matters like this people tend to lump stuff together so that they can be right. I care little for that. What I care for is what I am said is true to what I feel.
To illustrate my point further. The dissenting minority wants the ability to conceal weapons. After what happened in Denver yesterday do you still feel the dissenting minority is keeping Democracy in check?
Or does it arrogantly believe it knows better than the majority?
