• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Extreme deification of the armed forces..

Kirkut

Well-known member

vcs

Well-known member
I can't understand why anyone would want to risk their life and health for some vague notion called "patriotism" TBH.

But, if people want to do it, then it should be open to all genders and archaic reasons like the one given above are total rubbish.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I can't understand why anyone would want to risk their life and health for some vague notion called "patriotism" TBH.

But, if people want to do it, then it should be open to all genders and archaic reasons like the one given above are total rubbish.
Sentences like this really annoy me for some reason.
 

vcs

Well-known member
Why? The entire notion is frankly, bollocks and in this day and age, does a lot more harm than good.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Why? The entire notion is frankly, bollocks and in this day and age, does a lot more harm than good.
I am second to no one in preaching against the dangers of nationalism, but this really is such a myopic and frankly privileged view. For the vast majority of people in the world, local communities and cultures and the sense of kinship and place that they give are some of the few things they have that they get for free and don't have to pay for.

More to the point, clearly many many many people people - the overwhelming mass of people - do believe in something called patriotism, and do believe in their countries as something to be attached to and belong to and, yes, defend from aggression if necessary. As a general rule no sentence that starts "I don't understand [something billions of people believe]" is a good sentence.
 

vcs

Well-known member
I disagree. The majority of people are first and foremost, concerned about how best to feed themselves and their families. People move wherever they get the best "deal" in terms of how they want to live their lives and that's how it should be. In fact, I would argue the opposite - calling for patriotic feelings to inform decisions is more privileged.

Having the means to defend your country from aggression is still, sadly, necessary, but there are very few armed conflicts that one can find a justification for these days.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I disagree. The majority of people are first and foremost, concerned about how best to feed themselves and their families. People move wherever they get the best "deal" in terms of how they want to live their lives and that's how it should be. In fact, I would argue the opposite - calling for patriotic feelings to inform decisions is more privileged.

Having the means to defend your country from aggression is still, sadly, necessary, but there are very few armed conflicts that one can find a justification for these days.
Humans are not mindless automata ruthlessly dedicated to maximising their market value. Community and place are invaluable to the overwhelming majority of the world, which is why most people do not move unless they absolutely have to, and even then they tend to retain strong links with their original point of origin.

Do you have any evidence that patriotism is concentrated in more privileged classes? This would go against literally all research on the topic. Not to mention the ample historical evidence of the 20th century, when the masses were repeatedly given a choice between their class interests and their national interests and repeatedly chose the latter first and foremost. I think you're conflating patriotism and nationalism here, which is an error.
 

honestbharani

Well-known member
I have the utmost respect for any individual who is willing to put himself at risk to save fellow human beings. And for the most part, that defines any military. But, I do agree that the respect given at the individual level for their sacrifices should not extend to unreasonable deification of the entity, but that concept really applies to anything and anywhere.
 

hendrix

Well-known member
I disagree. The majority of people are first and foremost, concerned about how best to feed themselves and their families. People move wherever they get the best "deal" in terms of how they want to live their lives and that's how it should be. In fact, I would argue the opposite - calling for patriotic feelings to inform decisions is more privileged.

Having the means to defend your country from aggression is still, sadly, necessary, but there are very few armed conflicts that one can find a justification for these days.
I am very much pro open borders and open movement as much as is possible but I think this is a little bit ignorant. For a start, simply having the ability to pack up your family together on an expensive plane and move across to the other side of the world is already a very very selective process, and that's without even taking into account getting into the issue of visas etc.

And then even with open immigration I think there really should be a respect and integration with the host culture to at least some degree.
 

D/L

Well-known member
In all honesty, why would a woman want to be in combat roles? There is absolutely nothing empowering about it. There are real grenade explosions, rockets fired and the smell of gun powder in the air. Wanting to be in a combat role because you want to get that feel good effect after watching a war movie is not a sensible decision.
The issue should be decided upon the basis of how effective a mixed *** (again, not my asterisks) combat unit is likely to be.
 

StephenZA

Well-known member
My issue with patriotism is that people don't recognise it for what it is... an emotional attachment to your upbringing and culture; even if only on a local village and/or provincial level. Which is great, because people need that comfort and sense of belonging. But the minute people start attributing it to being 'better than' because of fallacious reason then they start to fall towards blind patriotism; even without the nationalistic tendencies of expansionism and protectionism. Patriotism is to often used as a shield towards nationalistic tendencies.

The minute somebody talks about doing your 'patriotic duty' I hear alarm bells, because it is an appeal to emotion not an appeal to thought and consideration, and what you as a person might necessarily believe to be right/wrong. And emotional manipulation of people seems a bad place to start running anything, never-mind a country.
 

harsh.ag

Well-known member
How do you get people to die in defense of a country/culture/civilization otherwise? If it's not "better" than the conquering entity.

I bet you won't see any of the "rational" crowd lining up in times of war. They are too smart to do so, you see. Much better to hedge your bets by investing in a diversified class of assets.
 

weldone

Well-known member
In all honesty, why would a woman want to be in combat roles? There is absolutely nothing empowering about it. There are real grenade explosions, rockets fired and the smell of gun powder in the air. Wanting to be in a combat role because you want to get that feel good effect after watching a war movie is not a sensible decision.
For the same reason a man would want to be in combat role. "When there are real grenade explosions, rockets fired and smell of gun powder in the air" the bicep size isn't the most important ingredient to success. It's not an arm-wrestling contest or MMA.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Well-known member
I've sort of come to believe that the human need for identity and the human need to have an outgroup to feel superior to are both fixed, and the best we can do is have identities that don't lead to violence and outgroups that at least vaguely deserve it.
 

Flem274*

123/5
I've sort of come to believe that the human need for identity and the human need to have an outgroup to feel superior to are both fixed, and the best we can do is have identities that don't lead to violence and outgroups that at least vaguely deserve it.
aka it is morally correct to punch nazis in the face
 

D/L

Well-known member
For the same reason a man would want to be in combat role. "When there are real grenade explosions, rockets fired and smell of gun powder in the air" the bicep size isn't the most important ingredient to success. It's not an arm-wrestling contest or MMA.
That ignores the proportions of male and female populations to whom you would ascribe such a wish, No doubt, some think that front line units should be 50% male and 50% female but, for reasons of effectiveness and the realities (important things, these) of recruiting difficulties, this would never happen, nor even get close.
 

Flem274*

123/5
yeah nah i've seen enough women in combat sport to be fairly confident that if there were ever a need for mass recruitment in new zealand, a bucketload of girls would be signing up. i think men underestimate just how many women love a good fight.

and if they meet the fitness requirements and pass basic training, full power to them.
 

Uppercut

Well-known member
some think that front line units should be 50% male and 50% female
:laugh: this is the strawiest straw man I've ever seen. I don't think you could even find someone who thinks this using the search function on Twitter, and you can find any opinion there. Hardcore feminists are at best ambivalent towards the army and certainly don't have strong opinions about how it should be run.
 
Top