 |
| "Frances and the Fairies" (1917) taken by Elsie Wright |
He suggests that this may be “a great flaw” in his personality. Why might an educated person say that a lack of emotional connection to a country is a personality flaw? Why, on the other hand, might an educated person argue that it silly to love or to hate a country?
For more on those who believe in pixies (including Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes), check out this video:
A lack of emotional connection to a country takes away a piece of that person's identity and culture so that it may be more, or less I suppose, difficult to define one's ideals and morals. I say less because instead of being governed by one's parents, culture, and society in general, the person who has no emotional connection to a country can develop his or her own ideals and morals and if the people in the country he or she is presently in doesn't accept them, he or she can just move away. I do think it is silly to connect any strong emotion with a country such as love and hate because often the person doesn't literally hate China for example, because it is too crowded or busy or whatever, China, the country itself, has nothing to do with the people living there and what they do to the landscape. It would be more accurate to say you hate the people in China. Or if one would go to France and say "Oh I love the way it looks or the landscape but I hate the people" well then you don't love France, you just love the architecture and landscape. I feel that everyone needs a home town by which to define his or herself and it is silly to attach great emotions to a country because the country didn't earn it as much as the people or other aspects.
ReplyDeleteIs it silly to say you can love or hate the people of a particular country? How is that different from loving or hating the architecture of the country or its landscape? Is it less silly to say that you hate the people of a particular small town?
ReplyDeleteDr. Benton, your question reminds me of how it was on my high school football team. I got along with 95% of my teammates both on and off of the field. But there were still those two or three individuals that I butted heads with on a fairly regular basis. We just had conflicting personalities. Outside of football, the only conversation we would have was small talk about the upcoming game or practice, and that was only on a few occasions. During practice we would avoid each other to evade confrontation, which could get moderately heated on the football field. These few kids to me were nothing more than teammates to me; someone I was forced to interact with on a daily basis. This was not just me either; there is always conflict among members of a team. However, this was not the case on Friday nights when we would compete with other schools. During games we all instantly became closer than ever. It was us against the other team then and we only had each other to depend upon. We were all competing for our school and town. Everyone complained about our small town and said how ready we are to leave it, but we still “fought” for it as a team. It did not matter that we disagreed on every other possible topic, we all stuck together as a team and we were proud to be from our town. This is a microcosm of how I feel about patriotism. We may not agree as individuals, but when faced by another opposition we become unified.
ReplyDeleteI think in some aspect of our lives we've all experienced the kind of unifying experience that you describe, David. But can you see why Campbell might think this kind of arbitrary bonding is silly? Or even dangerous? (Consider, for example, the fights that sometimes break out between Texas and OU fans.)
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see many scenarios that it is dangerous. There are always extreme personalities in a group regardless how big or small it may be. These are the ones that cause the problems. When there is already reason for dispute among two or more groups, the smallest mishap could cause great trouble. All it takes is one person to place one toe over the line to cause mayhem, and this causes a chain reaction that can end up involving every member of the opposing sides. In your example of the Texas and OU fans, if an OU fan pushes a Texas fan far enough and the Texas fan throws a punch at the OU fan it will cause much more commotion than merely two people conflicting. The other OU fans around would help their fellow Sooner, so would the Texas supporters for their respective comrade. A sense of invincibility comes to a person when they know they have the backing of others in an “us versus them” situation (kind of like power in number), and they will do something they would not do alone. The same thing applies to other levels of similar situations.
ReplyDelete