4 July 2004 - Sunday
Mystic patriotism
G. K. Chesterton, "The Flag of the World," Orthodoxy (1908):
I do not deny that reform may be excessive; I only say that it is the mystic patriot who reforms. Mere jingo self-contentment is commonest among those who have some pedantic reason for their patriotism. The worst jingoes do not love England, but a theory of England. If we love England for being an empire, we may overrate the success with which we rule the Hindoos. But if we love it only for being a nation, we can face all events: for it would be a nation even if the Hindoos ruled us. Thus also only those will permit their patriotism to falsify history whose patriotism depends on history. A man who loves England for being English will not mind how she arose. But a man who loves England for being Anglo-Saxon may go against all facts for his fancy. He may end (like Carlyle and Freeman) by maintaining that the Norman Conquest was a Saxon Conquest. He may end in utter unreason—because he has a reason. A man who loves France for being military will palliate the army of 1870. But a man who loves France for being France will improve the army of 1870. This is exactly what the French have done, and France is a good instance of the working paradox. Nowhere else is patriotism more purely abstract and arbitrary; and nowhere else is reform more drastic and sweeping. The more transcendental is your patriotism, the more practical are your politics.| Posted by Wilson at 12:08 Central | TrackBack
| Report submitted to the Power Desk
Post a comment
(You must preview your comment before posting it)
(You must preview your comment before posting it)
Hmm... That'll take a couple of hours to digest, and internet costs down here so I can't publish complete thoughts yet. However, I think he's right. I've noticed it in the sciences, since that is what I deal with on a daily basis. A form of circular reasoning based off of a desire to come either to a certain conclusion or to exclude a possibility. Darwin wrote the theory of evolution to show how life came to be without God. With God thus excluded from his theory, he naturally came to the conclusion that life must have started without God. Granted that this is a gross simplification, nevertheless it is valid. Scientists, like historians apparently, have a nasty tendency to rearrange the facts to arrive at the desired conclusion. Oh, and I'd like to start a petition to get moved out of the rare updates section... *grin*¨
The thoughts of Scooby on 4 July 2004 - 16:54 Central-caleb
+ + + + +