On National Pride and Shame

[seer]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are capable of reading the constitution and the 3/5 clause, and you don't experience any sense of "oh my - my country did that!" You can read the entire history of the "Trail of Tears" and never experience, "oh my, the country I love did that!" You can look at the legal decisions requiring slaves to be returned to their masters and all of the Jim Crow laws and not think, "oh my, the country I love did that."

You got it, there is a different in saying some of those things were bad and navel gazing over our wrongs. Then I look at history, are we better or worse than any other great power? For the most part better much better.

Do you also walk by the Washington monument and not feel any sense of pride that "my country did that!" Do you walk by the WWII memorial and read the stories of the U.S. being instrumental in freeing Europe and not feel the pride of "my country did that!" Do you watch the first landing on the moon and feel no sense of pride that "my country did that!"

I those cases I'm much more likely to be grateful for what the individuals did. I see no use in constantly putting down our nation.

OK, so make the picnic a month ago. You weren't even there. You just went to the same state park the church went to, and the ranger gives you an earful about the church group that was there a month ago ands trashed the place. They don't know you're a member - they're just frustrated that they had to clean it all up. There's nothing left for you to do. You're telling me you would not feel one iota of dismay that "oh my, that was MY church that did that!" You would simply feel, "I didn't do it, and it's clean now - so 'nuff said."

I suspect they were Jehovah Witnesses.

[Sparko]

I don't see how this is relevant. The ones on "the other side" are not going to agree with "this is immoral" so the discussion is moot. We're explicitly talking about the side that believes the action is immoral.



You're jumping ahead and trying to make this binary. FIRST I would think that one would feel the group shame, which motivates one to take action and fix the problem, and THEN one feels personal pride at taking action and group pride at making the situation right. AFTER the event, if all has been set to rights, there is little/no benefit to dwelling on the shame and every reason to take pride in the repairs.



You are, again, conflating a sense of personal shame with a sense of national/group shame. Our nation took several immoral steps (I think we agree on that) to defend slavery at both the national and state levels. That is the source of national shame. That same nation has reversed many of those laws, which is a source of national pride. But then comes that all important piece, if all has been set to rights.



I wasn't asking for equivalence with slavery. I was asking how you would respond in that situation. What you would feel and what you would do.

I don't feel shame at what people in the past did. I don't identify with them.

Should we have done things differently? Probably, but It is done. Evil people will get what they deserve at the judgment seat. We can't change the past. There is nothing "we can do" to change it. If you are using all this to argue for "reparations" then you are barking up the wrong tree. The people living today are no not responsible for the past actions of people. And the people they would be paying reparations for are not and never have been enslaved. If my great grandpa was a slaver, I would not be responsible for his actions, nor would that slave's great grandson be deserving of any reparations. He was never a slave. And the reason he is not a slave is that our ancestors also freed the slaves.

[seer]

If you are using all this to argue for "reparations" then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I was wondering what this was all about.

[carpedm9587]

You got it, there is a different in saying some of those things were bad and navel gazing over our wrongs. Then I look at history, are we better or worse than any other great power? For the most part better much better.

Why do you keep adding things to what I said and then knocking them down? Do you realize that is the very definition of a strawman?

I never said anything about "navel gazing." Indeed, I explicitly said, multiple times, that I do NOT go around bemoaning the past ills of our country. They don't live in my mind. But I do ENCOUNTER then now and then. I am not asking you "do you sit around and bemoan the Trail of Tears." I am asking you, if you were reading a U.S. history that included a description of the Trail of Tears, is there no part of you that would have an, "oh my - that's something my country did" response.

Likewise, if you discovered that your church group trashed that state park last month at an event you had nothing to do with, is there no part of you that would feel, "oh my - that was MY church group that did that!"

I those cases I'm much more likely to be grateful for what the individuals did. I see no use in constantly putting down our nation.

I didn't ask about gratitude - or pulling down. The question was specifically, do you experience absolutely no sense of national PRIDE when you walk by the Washington Monument, view the first moon landing, see the WWII memorial, or read about the U.S. role in fighting disease worldwide? Do you take no pride whatsoever in the accomplishments of our nation?

I suspect they were Jehovah Witnesses.

And you dodged the question.

[carpedm9587]

I don't feel shame at what people in the past did. I don't identify with them.

Either you guys truly don't get it - or you're just dedicated to building strawmen and knocking them down.

Once again - I said nothing about personal shame. I ALSO do not feel personal shame for the actions of other people - EVER. That was not the question. After all of the repetition - it is hard for me to believe you don't actually know that.

Should we have done things differently? Probably, but It is done. Evil people will get what they deserve at the judgment seat. We can't change the past. There is nothing "we can do" to change it. If you are using all this to argue for "reparations" then you are barking up the wrong tree. The people living today are no not responsible for the past actions of people. And the people they would be paying reparations for are not and never have been enslaved. If my great grandpa was a slaver, I would not be responsible for his actions, nor would that slave's great grandson be deserving of any reparations. He was never a slave. And the reason he is not a slave is that our ancestors also freed the slaves.

Again - I said nothing about reparations. I said nothing about the actions of your grandpa or any other single individual.

At this point, I think I will disconnect. For whatever reason, the questions being asked are not being understood and this is becoming rather tedious. I think I have been around this merry-go-round more than enough. If there are lurkers, I can only hope they have understood the gist of the argument.

[Mountain Man]

Why? If you think we are spending too much on Defense, and I think we are spending too much on defense, we can have a discussion on what parts of defense need to be cut. If you think it's because there's wasteful spending, and I think it's because the military industrial complex is killing people to make a profit and the military is evil and helping them, we can still work together to figure out what to cut and how deep. It might get difficult, but there's room to find compromise and agreement. That underlying disagreement on why MIGHT cause issues in discussion, but we at least both recognize cuts should be made, and should be able to find some common ground in what to cut.

If you think we are spending too much on defense, and I think that we aren't spending enough. Then we aren't even in a good enough spot to discuss cuts because neither one of us has a fundamental agreement in the goal (cut vs raise).

In the first scenario, even if there is fundamental disagreement in reasons, there is an agreement in the fundamental spot needed to move forward. In the second, that lack of agreement in the basic goal prevents discussion from even happening.

This reads as though you agree with me that there needs to be agreement about why something is wrong before we can even start discussing a solution.

[carpedm9587]

I was wondering what this was all about.

And as far as I can tell - you still don't know.

[CivilDiscourse]

This reads as though you agree with me that there needs to be agreement about why something is wrong before we can even start discussing a solution.

No, you have it precisely backwards. I'm saying so long as we agree on X, then the reason WHY we each individually decided on X isn't needed in order to discuss what to do about X. Those differences MIGHT get in the way of those futher discussions, but those discussions can still happen.

If we can't even agree on X, then going further about how to deal with X can't happen.

[seer]

I never said anything about "navel gazing." Indeed, I explicitly said, multiple times, that I do NOT go around bemoaning the past ills of our country. They don't live in my mind. But I do ENCOUNTER then now and then. I am not asking you "do you sit around and bemoan the Trail of Tears." I am asking you, if you were reading a U.S. history that included a description of the Trail of Tears, is there no part of you that would have an, "oh my - that's something my country did" response.

But that is exactly what you are doing. And no, I don't dwell on the Trail of Tears because there is nothing I can do about it.

I didn't ask about gratitude - or pulling down. The question was specifically, do you experience absolutely no sense of national PRIDE when you walk by the Washington Monument, view the first moon landing, see the WWII memorial, or read about the U.S. role in fighting disease worldwide? Do you take no pride whatsoever in the accomplishments of our nation?

But gratitude is exactly what I would feel. And yes I am grateful for our accomplishments. Again, I look at it in the context of history, we are better, more free and prosperous than any great nation I can think of. And I chose to focus on that rather than bad mouthing our nation. I just don't see or feel the national shame that you seem to wallow in...

[carpedm9587]

At this point, I think this thread has more than come to an end. For those of you who might just be reading in interest, the point of the thread was to raise the question, "is it rational to experience a sense of national shame for the ills done by our country?"

I think this is a perfectly natural response to encountering those ills in histories, museums, and other venues. We are part of a body that has continuity in time. If it is rational to feel a sense of national (not personal) pride in the accomplishments of that nation, it is also rational to feel a sense of national (not personal) shame at its bad choices. Dwelling on those ills does not accomplish anything, but we should all remain open to exploring those ills if a) they can teach us something, or b) there is still work to be done to undo any lingering harm.

In general, most of the people I meet who lean right express the views I have seen expressed here: not my actions, not my problem. They don't want to look at the ills of the past because that is "dwelling" or "navel gazing." Many of those same people express pride, however, in some of the things I have listed, like the moon landing or our constitution or our role in WWII. I find it inconsistent to feel national pride for things one had nothing to do with and then eschew national shame on the basis that "I didn't have anything to do with it."

And I strongly suspect that people do not act that way in other contexts. I think the example of the hypothetical picnic event is a good case in point. I suspect that most people, if they were in attendance at that church picnic in a state park where people from the group were throwing trash all over the place, would experience a sense of group shame that their church is acting in that way, and would set out to challenge the group to do better and clean up before leaving. I suspect, if the group DID clean up, they would take pride in the choice of their church. If the group refused and left anyway, I suspect they would be embarrassed for their church, and might even clean up the mess themselves.

And in the case where the church goer goes to the state park a month AFTER a church picnic they did not attend, and gets an earful about "this church group that trashed the place a month ago," I suspect most people would apologize on behalf of their church group and promise to address it at the next church meeting - perhaps even attempting to get the church to reimburse the park for the cost of the cleanup. I suspect most would feel a sense of group shame/embarrassment that their church had acted in such a way.

If I am right about those suspicions, and I truly hope I am, I think the same thing applies to the national and corporate world. I believe it is always worthwhile to spend time on the ills of the past if we can learn from them, or if we still have work to do to undo the injustice. It is also worthwhile to take pride in the accomplishments of both the present and the past.

Thanks to all who participated. It helped me frame some of this better in my mind, and find better language to express it.

As Dio would say: fin

[Mountain Man]

OK, let me try a slightly different analogy. Consider the statement, "if you like bananas (like me), putting bananas on a pizza is delicious." If you don't like bananas, discussing the deliciousness of bananas on pizzas is pointless. You already don't like bananas. If you like them, then having the discussion about bananas on pizzas is a reasonable discussion. I don't have to know WHY you like bananas, or even what it is about them that you like. The IF condition has been met: you like bananas, so discussing the THEN is reasonable.

Likewise, "If you think our nation has done bad things, feeling shame about those bad things is a reasonable response," is only dependent on you agreeing that our nation has done bad things. It doesn't require an understanding of how you arrived at that position, what things are bad or good, or anything else. If you don't think our nation has done bad things, the rest of the discussion is moot.

Another strange analogy. I like bananas but find the idea of putting them on pizza revolting. So, no, just because we might appear on the surface to agree about A does not mean I am obligated to agree with you about B.

[CivilDiscourse]

And I strongly suspect that people do not act that way in other contexts. I think the example of the hypothetical picnic event is a good case in point. I suspect that most people, if they were in attendance at that church picnic in a state park where people from the group were throwing trash all over the place, would experience a sense of group shame that their church is acting in that way, and would set out to challenge the group to do better and clean up before leaving. I suspect, if the group DID clean up, they would take pride in the choice of their church. If the group refused and left anyway, I suspect they would be embarrassed for their church, and might even clean up the mess themselves.

And in the case where the church goer goes to the state park a month AFTER a church picnic they did not attend, and gets an earful about "this church group that trashed the place a month ago," I suspect most people would apologize on behalf of their church group and promise to address it at the next church meeting - perhaps even attempting to get the church to reimburse the park for the cost of the cleanup. I suspect most would feel a sense of group shame/embarrassment that their church had acted in such a way.

This situation, however, is not analogous to the OP. The Church and it's actions are specifically, very recent. So recent, as to potentially directly reflect on you, your leadership, etc. personally. There are questions that can be asked DIRECTLY of you. Did you try and stop it? Are you part of the current culture that has created a situation where that recent event could have happened? Etc. In other words, your example above is that the organization you are part of, did something recently, that can reasonably be attributed directly, or indirectly, to you.

The OP isn't that at all. The OP is about events that happened before anyone alive today was even born. That connection is not there. You are not responsible for slavery, the fact that the country once had slavery before you were born is not a reflection on you. Could you have done anything about that past event? No. Was there any way YOU influenced that past event? No. You have no connection with that past event except by accident of birth.

[Sparko]

Either you guys truly don't get it - or you're just dedicated to building strawmen and knocking them down.

Once again - I said nothing about personal shame. I ALSO do not feel personal shame for the actions of other people - EVER. That was not the question. After all of the repetition - it is hard for me to believe you don't actually know that.



Again - I said nothing about reparations. I said nothing about the actions of your grandpa or any other single individual.

At this point, I think I will disconnect. For whatever reason, the questions being asked are not being understood and this is becoming rather tedious. I think I have been around this merry-go-round more than enough. If there are lurkers, I can only hope they have understood the gist of the argument.

Maybe you should ask Hypatia if she feels shame at being German?

[Mountain Man]

The distinction is the object of the shame. At no point, in wandering around Fort Pickens, did I experience a sense of "oh my - I did a bad thing." I didn't do ANY of those things. What I experienced was a sense of "Oh my, a group I have decided to be part of did a bad thing. I am ashamed for that choice by that group at that time, and I feel a desire to see if those bad things have a ripple effect into the present that needs to be addressed." By choosing to be a member of the group, I gain the rights of the group, and the responsibilities as well. If this group did a bad thing that impacted people, my membership gives me an obligation to right any wrongs that can still be righted, to make the entire group the best it can be in the present.

There is no personal guilt here.

Put it this way: if you went to your church picnic and found that everyone there was throwing their trash all over the ground and in the water, would you not want to call that group to be better about their trash? Or would you simply say, "I'm not tossing trash, that's good enough for me!" And if you discovered that the church had a picnic last week, which you didn't even attend, and completely trashed the venue, would you not feel a sense of shame that this group you love and are affiliated with acted this way? Would you not want to gather people together and go get that venue cleaned up, and challenge the group to not do this again, even though you had nothing to do with the littering?

Sure, if somebody is doing something right then and there that I can put a stop to, I would. But suppose I learn that some time in the past, the group threw trash around, but they no longer do. Why should I feel ashamed about that?