Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I think my form of patriotism is the one that embraces the concept of
    pride and belief that your country is a GOOD place that does GOOD
    things.  My boundary is crossed when someone ELSE defines that GOOD as
    something *I* feel is BAD (everyone has to be republican, everyone has
    to oppose nudity, everyone has to donate $10 to their church every
    week, stuff like that there), and refuses to listen to my voice, or the
    voices of others, when making their decisions about my country. 
    Particularly when this refusal to listen seems to occur only towards
    women (in my case) and minorities (in the broader sense).
    
    -Jody
    

Nothing to add to the discussion, but I just thought I would point out 
the irony of the word "PATRIotism" with respect to women, for those who
missed it.  :-)

D!

    I don't like the idea of patriotism.  I think it's dangerous.  I
    think it's been used too often through history as a way of getting
    ordinary people to give up their own lives, and go to war to either
    kill other ordinary people or be killed themselves.  This is usually
    done under the guise of patriotism but the real reasons seem to
    be to further the interests of a few rich men in power.  I think
    patriotism has been used to exploit ordinary people too many times.
    
    I, also, think that growing up in the U.S. in the 1950's and 60's
    that I was brainwashed into thinking a lot of simple-minded patriotic
    things about America.  I was told that the U.S. is the best country
    in the world, that I was lucky to be born here and that everything
    here is better than everywhere else and that everyone else in the
    entire world would rather be an American than whatever they are.
     Now, I realize most of that was nonsense.  The U.S. may be better
    than a lot of places, but it's not the best place in the world in
    every way.  What would have been wrong with being born in Canada,
    or Australia, or New Zealand, or the Netherlands, or Great Britain,
    for example?
    
    To be honest, I don't think I would have even thought twice about
    the flag being blown over.
    
    Lorna
    
     

    When I first started paying attention to my pledging allegiance to
    the flag (in second grade, I think), I had to make some decisions.
    
    I knew that "with liberty and justice for all" wasn't true.  So I
    decided that I was pledging myself to doing my small part to *make*
    it come true, to make the reality match the ideal.
    
    I knew that "under God" (a recent addition) wasn't something that
    *everyone* believed in or was happy with.  I decided that there were
    enough Americans who believed in a god, and who believed that their
    God was watching over their country, that they had essentially put
    God up there, so that it was all right for me to say "under God".
    (Whadaya want?  I was only seven, and I *had* to say the Pledge, so
    I had to come up with *some* rationale.)
    
    Basically, my patriotism is directed towards the best that this
    country is and to the best that it can be.  And I get very unhappy
    with people who are not bothered by third-rate behaviors.  (I can
    understand toleration for the second-rate; it's hard to whip up
    any strong emotion about it, one way or the other.)
    
    							Ann B.

	re:.0 (Justine Sullivan)

    >  What do other women think about the flag, patriotism?  

	My friend Lois (a black woman and soon-to-be the youngest
	Ph.D graduate ever at Boston College) told me she sees,
	in each of the flag's stars, all of the suffering felt and
	hatred perpetrated against darker people in each of the 
	states.  (she said it in a much more profound manner)

	The most consistently patriotic group of people I have ever 
	met (continue to meet) are members of gun clubs.
	My mother is a very patriotic person.  And now that I think
	about the previous 2 statements, I realize the only *overtly*
	(so that I would notice it) patriotic people I ever met have
	been politically positioned as "conservatives" or to the right
	of conservative.   Anyone else notice this?   Why?

	Justine, you touched on that idea with:
> Is there room for patriotism when you're working/hoping for social change? 

	So maybe those who are more liberal and working/hoping for
	social change would answer "not much" to the above?

	I think the entire debate over flag-burning is downright
	silly since flag-burning is not possible.  You can't
	"burn" a symbol and what it stands for!

							nancy b.

    
    Good question, Justine, one I've sort of come to grips with
    myself within the last couple of years.  In particular,
    
    >Is there room for patriotism when you're working/hoping for social
    >change?  Or do you think it's part of what has to change?  For example,
    >is it possible to disagree with US foreign policy in virtually every
    >land and still be patriotic?   Is there something to be proud of?
    >Something worth protecting?
    
    Yes!  It's not whether one is for or against the current (or any)
    government administration and its policies, but that one would defend
    the *process*, the system of change, that has always taken place in
    this country.  Peaceful demonstrations, pickets, strikes, boycotts,
    and so forth are all part of the process of change which *is* the
    American way.
    
    I can be both ashamed of my government administration's foreign policies
    and proud of our "process" (for lack of a better word) that allows for
    change.
    

In my younger gypsy days, the U.S. flag was a symbol of great security to me.
I'd look for it in new places and know, when I found it, that I could get help
if I needed it.  So, while I've never much liked the way the thing looks, it's 
been a welcome sight.

I am pleased to call myself American even if I do not approve of all that is 
American.  I am a patriot in so far as I love my country, but I'm not so 
chauvanistic as to be willfully blind to its faults.

I've always hated the Pledge of Allegiance. Stopped saying it at my earliest 
opportunity.  Because, for me it was a lie.  I never had any intention of
consecrating myself to my country.

Growing up in diplomatic/military surroundings has left it mark upon me.  

    Mark
    
    I think I'm on the + side for patriotic, I don't have any patience
    with those on the extreme left who paint everything American black.
    
    But then I have as much trouble with those on the right who paint
    a narrow white male vision of what America ought to be, the 'love it
    or leave it types'
    
    But we own a flag that was flown over the Capitol building and we
    try and remember to fly it on holidays.
    
    Bonnie

I hear some describe flag-wavers and flag-protectors as patriotic. And I
hear people call those who oppose the proposed flag amendment unpatriotic.
Personally, I think that's backwards: I think it's far more patriotic to
work to uphold the rights of free speech than it is to add an
amendment protecting the flag.

I guess I'd define patriotism as love for our country that is backed by
the willingness to get involved in protecting and applying the constitution and
the Bill of Rights. Traditionally, willingness to be involved has
meant the willingness to fight in a war to protect our freedom. Patriotic
involvement can also be expressed by working for civil rights, lobbying
against the flag amendment, driving voters to the polls on election
day, etc., etc...... 

I guess patriotism is all in the eye of the beholder....

Kathy

    Yes!
    
    What I love about America is the *ideals*, encoded in our Constitution
    and Bill of Rights.
    
    Most of the things I dislike about America are the *practices*.  The
    implementation.  Narrow interpretations.  
    
    I agree that the key to patriotism for me is upholding the ideals of
    what America is supposed to stand for -- freedom from tyranny, etc.;
    psuedopatriotism for me is raising the value of the *symbols* for the
    ideals above the ideals themselves.  I think patriotism is expressed
    more by *doing* the right thing than by saying the right thing.
    
    I would be bothered by seeing a flag dragging in the dust, but only by
    the realization that the person who put it up didn't really care to do
    it properly.  If you plan to show respect, be sincere and do it right.
    
    Pam

    I grew up in Indiana among "religious" conservative people, who even by 
    my youthful standards knew nothing about religion, about the love of
    God and of humankind, and I've been caused ongoing grief in my own
    attempts to love God by their awful beliefs in the "God of Hell."
    
    If conservative people have as little genuine love of country as my
    Indiana neighbors and relatives had of God, then we need to look
    elsewhere for patriotism.  Someone has already suggested that this love
    of country is really an attempt to maintain the status quo for
    themselves, and surely they don't really believe it is possible!
    
    Briana

         Yeah, but....

         'Preserving the status quo' is the intent and function
         of patriotism...love of Fatherland [from the Greek].
         Patriots do not want to *change* their country they want
         to *protect* and *preserve* it.

         That's why it's so easy to lead patriots off to war to
         get their brains shot out....they don't question the
         *right* or *authority* of the "Fatherland" to sacrifice
         them in the name of patriotism.

         Part of the internal national crisis associated with the
         VietNam war was just because of the dichotomy created
         when good, intelligent, rational [but non-patriotic] people 
         tried to convince good, intelligent, rational [but
         patriotic] people that marching off to war regardless of
         justification was *wrong*.

         Being non-patriotic has nothing to do with not loving
         the US or the rights we have or your neighbors...it has
         to do with refusing to do the old "My Country, do or
         die" routine without a preliminary pulse-check that asks
         the question: "Should I/We be doing this?"

         The same goes for religion. Retribution is a common
         tactic used when what one wants to achieve is obedience
         without recourse to rational thought. A "God" of love
         and understanding would not have kicked Adam and Eve out
         for taking a bite from an apple...but a "God" of
         retribution would have....and that allows us to create a
         group of people who make their livings helping us atone
         for the supposed "original sin".

         My point...[yup, there was one in here somewhere...I
         just have to find it again...]...is that much of what we
         see in our lives and ascribe to "truths" are mereley the
         trappings  of successfull sociological mechanics.

         The question being..."How do you make thousands
         [millions] of people function as a whole?"

         The answer being:..."You give them a system that
         exerts rules of behavior and interaction not by
         enforcement but by 'belief'".

         I *believe* I should love my country...so I will do what
         my country wants...[less and less effective as the world
         appraoches global awareness.

         It is basically impossible [as Congress is finding out]
         to *legislate* respect....one has to be socialized into
         accepting it.

         Melinda

    The mothe r of one of my friends during high school was one of the most
    patriotic persons I knew. She was also one of the first "hippies". She
    would come to attention and salute the flag, (civilian salute-hand over
    heart) sing the National Anthem when it was being sung and all the
    other "patriotic" things at the proper time. She has also been arrested
    for protesting at Seabrook, protesting the Vietnam War, and burning
    draft cards. (Her son's) She loves this country enough to try to change
    what she sees as wrong and she's willing to listen to dissenting
    oppinions and even change her mind. THe bottom line is, she loves
    America but not necessarily what certain posibly narrow minded people
    and elected or appointed officials tell you what is right for America. 
    
    Now I feel the same way and I too am willing to work for it, but I'm
    not a woman and the topic is women and patriotism.
    
    Phil

    One of the most surprising things to deal with in practicing Buddhism
    within the structure of the American lay organization of Nichiren
    Shoshu Buddhists was the incredible emphasis on patriotism. It probably
    comes from the fact that the founders, men AND women, were Japanese
    immigrants, and EXTREMELY proud to be able to make a home here.  Thus,
    in various events which have centered on the Fourth of July, the themes
    have involved "what can I do for America", and such.
    
    The first time I confronted this, I was pretty shocked. I felt that
    history was being distorted - reported in terms of a fantasy, compared
    to the America I know, which has a lot of ugliness in it. But, I went
    and talked to a lot of people about it. And the idea is to rekindle a
    dream for your country at the same time that you have dreams for your
    own life. Make up your mind what kind of America you want, and work
    toward it. But you have to start by believing that America CAN become
    close to your dreams, thinking that believing in America isn't futile.
    Part of that also involves looking at the people who have been able to
    achieve their dreams here, and celebrating that part of the American
    past.
    
    One of the sayings that I learned in studying Buddhism is that the
    person and the environment are inseperable. Thus, hating America
    becomes pointless, as is hating yourself. Better to work on making
    yourself and your environment what you want them to be.
    
    I offer this as an example of some pretty religiously "liberal" people
    who are also extremely patriotic.

    re .13 I think you're confusing patriotism with the draft. I consider
    myself a patriot. I vehemently oppose draft laws. I love this
    country because it is founded on what are, to me, valid principles.
    (The rights of life & liberty, constitutionally limited gov't. The
    idea that "in order to secure these Rights, governments are
    instituted among Men." is probably the *most* important idea on
    this planet.)

    I oppose a great many actions taken by gov't. officials because
    those actions seem in direct opposition to those principles. I
    further feel that patriotism consists largely of screaming
    "Bullsh*t!" whenever some government functionary forgets what
    those principles are. Which nowadays means most politicians and
    most proposed laws, IMO.
    
    Dana

The Nichiren Buddhists were one of the very few pacifist groups in Japan to
oppose the war. They were persecuted for it. Patriotism is NOT incompatible
with pacifism.

	-- Charles (a very ex-Nichiren Buddhist)

Many thanks to D! for pointing out the "patri" in patriotism. Irony indeed 
(well that's one word for it...)

And speaking of irony, I'm not sure this is the place for this, but it 
seems to fit (from Ripley's Believe It Or Not):

"Statue of Liberty: A large statue in New York Harbor which portrays a 
woman holding a torch of freedom. On Oct. 28, 1886, the first day it was 
opened to the public, except for the two wives of the statue's creators, no 
women were invited to the ceremonies."

I guess I'm a Matriot. My allegiance is to the (nonexistent) country of the
mothers -- founding & fore -- of us all, whose deeds historians have seen
fit, for the most part, not to record. 

Dorian

>    re .13 I think you're confusing patriotism with the draft. I consider
>    myself a patriot. I vehemently oppose draft laws. I love this
>    country because it is founded on what are, to me, valid principles.
>    (The rights of life & liberty, constitutionally limited gov't. The
>    idea that "in order to secure these Rights, governments are
>    instituted among Men." is probably the *most* important idea on
>    this planet.)

	I always lose this argument...but anyway...

	No, I rather, think you are confusing *civil disobedience*
	word with *patriotism*.

	To answer you specifically:

	In the first point...[patriotism vs. draft]...I really
	said no such thing. I merely offered an example of how
	the function of a sociological control such as 'patriotism'
	can be used. It could be used for any number of 
	reasons.

	Successful sociological control mechanisms work
	because they appeal to the emotional content of
	an issue...in this case our love of country...rather
	than the rational implications of one.

	In the second point, I think most of us could use
	an unbiased review of the intent of our founding
	Fathers...and the document they created.

	This country was founded by a group of mis-fits and
	rabble-rousers that were desparately seeking a way
	to justify their break with the government [Britain]
	to the masses...[most of which were basically
	undecided about the whole mess.]

	Equal rights for all was the furthest thing from their
	minds...what they wanted was equal rights for the
	land-holders in the colonies. Where do you think excise 
	taxes came from? Or head taxes? They were not interested in creating
	a land where all were equal; they were interested in creating
	a country where *they* were equal.

	They had to prove at least two things to do so:

	1) They were equal to British land-holders
	2) That the right to question the authority of a government
	   was unalienable

	The wording that they had to use to accomplish this feat,
	established the wording that allows us to forge ahead in 
	the arena of civil rights.

	I do not dispute the *result* of these documents...I am
	merely paraphrasing the well supported and documented 
	*intent*. 

	Successive generations of Americans have taken these words
	and molded them to arrive at where we are today...but that
	was not the *intent* of those documents, nor the Founding Fathers.

>    I oppose a great many actions taken by gov't. officials because
>    those actions seem in direct opposition to those principles. I
>    further feel that patriotism consists largely of screaming
>    "Bullsh*t!" whenever some government functionary forgets what
>    those principles are. Which nowadays means most politicians and
>    most proposed laws, IMO.

	I would turn the tables on you [that was said with
	smile...{grin}] and ask you if you weren't confusing
	*civil disobediance* with *patriotism*?

	Civil Disobediance *was* something exceptional that
	founding Fathers *intended* to protect. And it, rather
	than equal rights or patriotism, is something that
	sets this country apart. [always...imho]

>The Nichiren Buddhists were one of the very few pacifist groups in Japan to
>oppose the war. They were persecuted for it. Patriotism is NOT incompatible
>with pacifism.

	Charles, I disagree. The fact that they were persecuted
	for their civil disobediance challanges the veracity of
	your conclusion.

	Civil Disobediance is a noble and long-standing art
	form. It has lead to the destruction and creation of
	numerous cultures and principalities.

	Furthermore, what you are describing is a *religious*
	phenomenum...not a political one. They were not pacifist
	because of their country; they were pacifist because of
	their religion. That state, lead them to defy their
	country...to be *unpatriotic*...right, just, noble,
	brave...but none-the-less...non-patriotic...by
	definition of the word.

	---

	Patriotism is not a mutable thing. Its definition harks
	back to the greeks who coined it and means un-questioning 
	love and obediance to the Fatherland. 

	And there is nothing wrong with patriotism....why shouldn't
	we feel this way about our country? But...when we start
	to question our country's policies...we may be being noble
	and good...but we are not being patriotic.

	Melinda

    In re .2 and .18
    
    	patria		country
    	patris		father

    
    Actually...
    
    Neither. 
    
    Patriot is a word of Greek origins. Patris...meaning exactly, the
    Fatherland.
    
    Words like PATRIMONY come from the Latin 'pater' Father.
    
    I don't think [my seven years of Latin was over 20 years ago] that
    there is any LATIN word patris...that would be a word for Father that
    ended in a female [is] nominative...I don't think so. [although the
    idea appeals to me.]
    
    So, although D!'s reference was a bit circumsized [patri instead of 
    patris] it was grammatically absolutely accurate. The word is a direct
    derivation of the Greek word that equates homeland with 'Father' or the
    male figurehead.
    
    Anyway...it should be a Greek nit...not a Latin one.
    
    [I just *love* rat holes...]
    
    M_
    

 re .8
 >   ...most if not all of the patriotic
 >   people I have known have been conservative politically. 
    
    That says something to me about who the country is working for.  It is
    like, if you asked people who are getting transitioned out of DEC
    involuntarily how they feel about the company, you will get a much
    different answer than employees in general I bet.  
      Some members of disenfranchised groups do have incredible 
    amounts of patriotism.  It seems like they are usually either part 
    of an institution that makes them feel included, like the military,
    or their patriotism is directed towards the ideals of our country, 
    not its current state.
    	Linda

>                <<< Note 225.20 by JAMMER::JACK "Marty Jack" >>>
>                                 -< Latin nit >-
>
>    In re .2 and .18
>    
>    	patria		country
>    	patris		father
>
    
    Well, not exactly.  The Latin for "father" is "pater", and its plural
    is "patres".  Both from the Greek "pater" (father), which also has
    Greek derivatives "patria" (family), and "patris" (fatherland).
    
    From the same (single!) root we also get the English words
    "paternoster," "patriarch," "patrician," "patriclinous," (which is about
    the same as:) "patrilineal," "patrilocal" (hard to explain in U.S.
    culture), "patriot," "patristic," etc., etc.
    
    You may think that what we have derived from the Latin "mater" is much
    more limited, other than the obvious "maternal" and its close
    relatives, and Long John Silber's favorite "damned matriarchy."  But
    the Latin "materia" actually comes form "mater," too.  So the whole
    "material universe" (for example) is derived from motherhood.  And I
    guess that the once dreaded "dialectical materialism" is, fundamentally,
    nothing more than talking about mothers.
    
    		- Bruce

    Re: .19
    
    When you say the Japanese Nichiren Buddhists were not patriots, but in
    fact anti-patriots, because of their pacifism and opposition to the
    war, you missed a key point. They *are* patriots in every sense of the
    word. I'm not trying to make semantic quibbles, they honestly love
    their country and are willing to say so and to promote it. Unless you
    *define* patriotism as being willing to fight for your country, as
    opposed to loving your country, and vigorously supporting it, your
    claim that the Nichiren Buddhists are not patriotic is either based on
    ignorance or just plain wrong. If you are going to contradict people
    who either are or were Nichiren Buddhists about *their* *own* beliefs
    and attitudes I would hope your position was based on more than what
    you read in notes. Nichiren Buddhists are (or at least were) pacifist
    patriots.
    
    	-- Charles
    

    re .19,.25
    
    I think what happened here is that someone missed a few letters.
    
    Charles said that in the case of Nichiren Shoshu Buddhists, pacificism
    is NOT *IN*compatible with patriotism.
    
    Now, unless civil disobedience is defined as anti-patriotic, the two of
    you are agreeing. Civil disobedience, when looked upon as an art form
    can be thought of as people who love a place enough to try to change
    the system rather than leave.

    Re .20:  I knew I shouldn't have entered that from dim memory without
    looking it up first ... thanks to all for the correction and
    elaboration.  Gack.

RE:.26

	Civil disobediance *is* defined as anti-patriotic
	if you use a strict definition of the word.

	That was my point. A matter of sematics; not
	intention.

===============================================================================

Charles,

>                    -< not a flame, read with "mild tone" >-

OK...I can do that [grin]...if you can?
    
>    When you say the Japanese Nichiren Buddhists were not patriots, but in
>    fact anti-patriots, because of their pacifism and opposition to the
>    war, you missed a key point. 

You are right, I missed it. But I think you also missed mine.

>    They *are* patriots in every sense of the
>    word. 

Well, see, here is where I disagree. If we take the actual definition of
the word..."unquestioning support of the Fatherland"...they cannot be
patriots because they refused to protect...[etc etc] the Fatherland.

What you are asking me to do is to *redefine* or use a *connotation* 
of the word, [one that includes responsibility for *right* [in somebody's 
terms] and love of the intent of the homeland]. In that light, certainly, 
what you say could be true. 

But mu point in .19 was to point out the strict, unconnotated [a new word?]
definition of the word 'patriot'. I *need* to know what definition of the 
word you are using. I am using one found in an [admittedly bulky] American 
Heritage that gives root language definitions.

>    I'm not trying to make semantic quibbles, 

Ah, but I *was*....and am. You are talking 'belief' I am talking
simple definition. [Which was the entire point of my previous note. I am
sorry I did not make it plain enough that it could not be misinterpretted.]
I entered the note to point out the semantic quandry of using an emotionally
packed word like 'patriotism' in a general-one-size-fits-all scenario when, in
fact, the word has a very specific and narrow meaning.

>    they honestly love
>    their country and are willing to say so and to promote it. 

I never, ever, inferred or said that I questioned that. 

>    Unless you
>    *define* patriotism as being willing to fight for your country, as
>    opposed to loving your country, and vigorously supporting it, your
>    claim that the Nichiren Buddhists are not patriotic is either based on
>    ignorance or just plain wrong. 

Charles, *I* didn't define the word...the Greeks did, when they made up
the root word. It *means* exactly...."willing to fight for your country".

Nowhere does it mean "willing to sacrifice yourself to make sure your 
country is doing the right thing" or "willing to defy your government 
when that government is betraying the intent of your homeland".

Please do not read things into my words that are *not* there. 
I made absolutely no slurs against any group that was pacifist, or 
otherwise. I offered no suggestion that what they or any other group did 
was [pick one:{wrong, bad, unaaceptable, weak}]

What I *did do* was point out the 1)[what I find fascinating] way that words can
be misconstrued from their intended meaning to mean something totally different
and 2) point out that the word patriotism when used semantically correctly has
a very narrow and restricted meaning.

My point was that not only do societies use such mechanisms as beliefs to
control the populace, but they also convince us that they aren't really doing
it by using just such words as 'patriotism'. We don't feel comfortable
challanging something done under the guise of patriotism..*because* people will
misinterpret our words to be an attack on the people involved rather than on
the action involved.

>    If you are going to contradict people
>    who either are or were Nichiren Buddhists about *their* *own* beliefs
>    and attitudes I would hope your position was based on more than what
>    you read in notes. 

I did not contradict you; I disagreed with you. [politely] That is my right.

And I ennumerated why...based on the actual definition of the word:
patriotism. NOT on what I read in notes, but from my understanding of the basis
and origins of Latin and Greek word. It was a semantic argument, not an attack 
on your beliefs.

Furthermore, [and, although I am not flaming either, this does get to me]
Where in my reply do you see me telling you or anyone else that 
you are mistaken in what you *believe*? Quote me if you can.

What I *said* was:[verbatim]

	"Charles, I disagree. The fact that they were persecuted
	for their civil disobediance challanges the veracity of
	your conclusion."

Here I said that I disagreed and why...that following the actual
*definition* of the word...a patriot would not be persecuted by
his own country. I said nothing about the Bhuddist beliefs.

	Civil Disobediance is a noble and long-standing art
	form. It has lead to the destruction and creation of
	numerous cultures and principalities.

Nothing here either? I thought I was being complimentary. I will
withdraw the comment if I am not.

	Furthermore, what you are describing is a *religious*
	phenomenum...not a political one. They were not pacifist
	because of their country; they were pacifist because of
	their religion. That state, lead them to defy their
	country...to be *unpatriotic*...right, just, noble,
	brave...but none-the-less...non-patriotic...by
	definition of the word.

I admitted here that their actions were based on their religious
beliefs and merely stated that their beliefs led them to resist
what the government was doing. Was that a misunderstanding of your
reply? That is what I thought you said they did.

I then stated my opinion that actions that are the outcome of religious 
beliefs are resident in the *religious*  arena and not in the *political* 
one. I don't think that was a slur.

I then applied the logic of definition to the action.

	If:

	A patriot must unquestioningly love and protect
	their country. [a direct statement of the definition
	of the word 'patriot'.]

	And if:

	The Nichiren Buddhists defied their government based
	on their religious beliefs and would not fight for
	their country.

	Then:

	Nichiren Buddhists are not patriots.

Charles, a logic statement is not judgemental. It is merely the factual
representation of a series of "If A. and If B. Then C." It says nothing about
whether A, B, or C are right, wrong or indifferent. 

I did not slur you, or the Nichiren Buddhists, or pretend to know
anything about their religion or their actions.

I simply stated that if we use the actual **DEFINITION OF THE WORD PATRIOT**
we cannot define them as patriots.

If I offended you, I apologise.

But I sincerely believe you did not read what I said, but what you
thought I said. I think you took offense from your interpretation of
what you think I meant....not from what I wrote.

Melinda

    Yesterday was a good opportunity to evaluate one's emotional
    patriotism.  While watching the Pops concert at the hatch shell,
    I got choked when the flag unfurled from the ceiling.  But at a
    newsbreak when they showed a man in the midwest preparing to toss
    a flag into a fire, I thought, "well, it's just a peice of cloth."
    People get so attached to symbols that maybe they forget what a
    symbol is; it _stands_ for something else, but it isn't the something
    else.  Of course in the act of flagburning, the protestor may be
    saying symbolically that he thinks our country should be torched.
    I don't see how that is any worse than writing a scathing editorial.
    Listening to the lyrics of the patriotic songs, I had trouble with
    This land is your land/This land is my land/...this land was made
    for you and me.  What about the native Americans?  Are these lyrics
    saying that the land is ours to exploit by divine right?  In high
    school when we had to recite the pledge of allegience, and I no
    longer believed in a god, I would just skip over the words "under
    God".  It seemed to me that that had no place in the pledge.  So
    I do have patriotic feelings, love of country, but I think
    that some of my fellow patriots are misguided.  It seems like there
    should be room for this sort of disagreement.
    	Linda

    > Listening to the lyrics of the patriotic songs, I had trouble with
    > This land is your land/This land is my land/...this land was made
    > for you and me.  What about the native Americans?  Are these lyrics
    > saying that the land is ours to exploit by divine right? 
    
    A few months ago I heard a long radio documentary on whichever Guthrie
    it was (Arlo, I think) who wrote that song.  When they discussed this
    song, they said he wrote it in anger; as a voice for the people; as a
    protest and eloquent rebuttal of another song that had appeared that
    year: "God bless America".  I don't think Guthrie was appealing to
    any divine right...he was speaking against the religionists'
    interpretation of what traditional values really mean/are, if this
    documentary was correct. 
    
    DougO

    "This Land Is Your Land" was written by Woodie Guthrie, father
    of the Mass. resident crazy named Arlo. 

More trivia.

Also, there are a few parts of This Land that you never here that
apparently considered unpatriotic.  They adovacate housing, food,
shelter and a decent living for everyone.  Guthrie was a communist of
sorts.  Back then a lot of intelectuals and artists were.  This was
when capitolism was not as sugar coated as it is is today and the
labor movements was starting up.

I heard Pete Seeger sing the missing lyrics last summer at the Bread
and Roses festival in Laurence.  Any one know them?  Paul Beck?

While it could be construed as insensitive to Native Americans, I'm
sure if Woody had known the true story, he would have been against the
oppression and genicide of Aboriginal People in this country that took
place and continues to take place today...

john

There are lots of verses to This Land Is Your Land which aren't commonly done
by the "I learned it from Peter Paul and Mary so it must be authentic" crowd.
Such as the verse which references a Private Property sign (quotes which follow
hopefully fall within "fair use" provisions):

	But on the other side, it didn't say nothin'
	That side was made for you and me

Or the verse about welfare, from memory:

	As I went walking, I saw my people
	By the relief office I saw my people
	They stood there hungry, I stood there askin'
	If this land was made for you and me

Several of these verses were included in "This Train is Bound for Glory", the
Woody Guthrie tribute we (Folk Song Society of Greater Boston) put on in Payne
Hall last May.

	Paul

Another bit of Woody Guthrie trivia (getting a bit off the topic, but at least
tangentially relating to patriotism) - he wrote a lot of songs supporting the
war effort in World War II (such as the Reuben James) and in support of war
bonds. He did one such set in Baltimore with Sonny Terry and Brownie McGee (two
great black bluesmen); after the set, the management told him "Thank you, Mr.
Guthrie - we have a table here for you to have dinner, and your friends can eat
back in the kitchen". Woody started shouting that we have to fight fascism here
at home, tipped the table with all the silverware onto the floor, and left.

(Recounted last night on CBS.)

    More rathole:                   
    
    Woody was aware of the American Indian problem.  He wrote a song called
    Oaklahoma Hills
    
    "Way down younder on the Indian nation
     ride my pony on the reservation
     in the Oaklahoma hills where I was born"
    
    Apparently (from a long-ago read of his biography "Bound for Glory")
    he had grown up with many Indians (Native Americans whatever PC term
    you choose) I believe Ogalala Sioux and was aware and acted on it.  His
    sensitivity was unusual since in the West, Indians were treated about
    the same as Blacks in the South.  This was in the 1920s, 1930s and
    1940s.
    
    He was definitely anti-fascist, in fact a pre-mature anti-fascist which
    was McCarthyism code for commie pinko.  Guthrie supported the Abraham
    Lincoln Brigade which fought in the Spanish revolution against Franco.
    
    Woody Guthrie was also very patriotic.  But he kept his eyes open for
    the other side of the no trepassing sign and found his America there.
    
       Margaret  (Not quite a former folkie)

    Woody Guthrie had a sign taped to his guitar:
    
     "This machine fights Fascists"
    
    
       Margaret

    	Charles Kuralt hosted a July 4th special that contained
    	a segment on Woody Guthrie. I noticed the sign on the
    	guitar. They talked to Pete Seeger, who also had some
    	kinda writing on his banjo (I believe), although I
    	could not read it.
    
    	Someone in the broadcast mentioned an incident wherein
    	Woody was playing with two other men who were both black.
    	When it came time to eat, the hosts asked Woody to sit
    	with them. The said the two black fellas could eat in
    	the kitchen. Guthrie supposedly got very upset and said
    	something like "We've got to start fighting Fascism here."
    	I guess hit flipped over a couple of tables and generally
    	got his point across.
    
    	Scott

<    	Someone in the broadcast mentioned an incident wherein
<    	Woody was playing with two other men who were both black.
<    	When it came time to eat, the hosts asked Woody to sit
<    	with them. The said the two black fellas could eat in
<    	the kitchen. Guthrie supposedly got very upset and said
<    	something like "We've got to start fighting Fascism here."
<    	I guess hit flipped over a couple of tables and generally
<    	got his point across.
    
    As Paul Beck mentioned a few notes back those men were Sonny Terry and
    Brownie McGee. I find this especially poignant as I have an album by
    Brownie and Sonny where they sing a song about America being the place
    where you can be free and live your potential. liesl

    <--(.38)
    
    "This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender"
    
    (inscription on Pete Seeger's banjo)