Patriots Vs Cosmopolites
What is the role of everyday people in the world? Should we care more about the local community that we inhabit, or the larger world that we share? That is an issue that our readings, and our class as a whole tries to tackle, the disparaging difference between being a patriot, and cosmopolites. In this new modern world where society is easily connected, and where news can travel instantaneously, has made far away countries our neighbors. We as a civilization are no longer bound by our countries border, moving from one country to another has never been easier, or as accepted. This has unfortunately created a conundrum about the role in our own country in this new global world. There still exist patriots, people who still take pride in their
…show more content…
own country, and hold a realistic position on the issues of its own nation against others. The interest of a Patriot is home bound, it is finding ways to enlarge the power and riches of its own nation above that of world issues. While it may appear selfish, Patriots, and to a greater extent nationalist value their identity and their nation, they want the best for their country. Cosmopolitism does not have that inherent problem, they see the bigger issues and they consider themselves to be citizens of the world, not tied down to one country. This can create an issue where they are seen as an idealist. Both of these Ideologies are not inherently right, but as we have become more connected people are starting to define themselves as either one or the other. I do not believe that one can simultaneously be a patriot and a world citizen, while there might be some compromise on some issues, but the philosophies are too distinct to work together in harmony. The relationship between people who identify Patriots and cosmopolites is an interesting one, two different sides of the same coin.
The tension between cosmopolitism and patriots is that they see the same issue, and have two completely differing views on what is the right action to take. Through the Cosmopolitism view, best described by Martah C. Nassbaum in “For Love of Country”, she states, “our highest allegiance must be to the community of humankind, and the best principles of our practical thought must respect the equal worth off all members of that community” (Nassbaum, 1). In short, what she is trying to say is that hold other countries’ problems as they were of your own. This holds in contrast to patriots who hold their own highest allegiance to their nation, and the better improvement of their own country. The example given in this particular reading is that of Martin Luther King Jr who was supported when he spoke about civil rights, but vilified once he spoke about the violence of the Vietnam War, and his dis-support of the violence. When Martin Luther King Jr spoke out in support of the Vietnamese he in thus went against the interest of his own country, something that is not allowed to be considered a patriot. His action could be hailed as a cosmopolitism move since his allegiance was to the Vietnamese people and the “community of humankind” in a larger context. For a Patriot this sacrifice is warranted, those Vietnamese are the enemies and are working against the interest of our country, so we must fight them. The conflict between Cosmopolitism and Patriotism is one whose interest is the most important their nation, or the global community. In this context compromises is possible but on the larger whole there will always be a clear distinction between these two
ideologies.
The reading that I found interesting that closely blurred the line between being both cosmopolitism and a patriot was from the Shattered Mirror “A Traveler’s tale” and the story of Richard Burton. His story is fascinating because he was a global citizen; he traveled and learned much about different cultures, languages, and ideas all around the world but he still managed to be a European Patriot. Richard Burton was an explorer who traversed across the world, learning much about other nations and civilizations making him a global citizen. The fact that he was patriotic towards all of Europe and no a specific state, defiantly makes him a progressive figure. Even through his travels and learning of other nations Richard Burton never changed his biases as stated, “Burton is a standing refutation, to those who imagine that prejudice derives from ignorance, and the intimacy must breed amity. You can be genuinely engaged with the way of other societies without approving, let alone adopting them ”(5,Shattered mirror) Connecting back to the paper that you can still be a patriot while being a global citizen, since the just traveling can solidify your prejudices rather than depleting them. A cosmopolitan described in the paragraph above cares about the community of human kind that is their first priority towards becoming loyal to the human race. Richard Burton is fascinating because he was the first step towards outright cosmopolites, he need to exist by being a semblance of the idea of faithfulness towards a home country, and the world at large. He learned and practiced other cultures, yet he never embraced them, he was a patriot to the end.
own country, and hold a realistic position on the issues of its own nation against others. The interest of a Patriot is home bound, it is finding ways to enlarge the power and riches of its own nation above that of world issues. While it may appear selfish, Patriots, and to a greater extent nationalist value their identity and their nation, they want the best for their country. Cosmopolitism does not have that inherent problem, they see the bigger issues and they consider themselves to be citizens of the world, not tied down to one country. This can create an issue where they are seen as an idealist. Both of these Ideologies are not inherently right, but as we have become more connected people are starting to define themselves as either one or the other. I do not believe that one can simultaneously be a patriot and a world citizen, while there might be some compromise on some issues, but the philosophies are too distinct to work together in harmony. The relationship between people who identify Patriots and cosmopolites is an interesting one, two different sides of the same coin.
The tension between cosmopolitism and patriots is that they see the same issue, and have two completely differing views on what is the right action to take. Through the Cosmopolitism view, best described by Martah C. Nassbaum in “For Love of Country”, she states, “our highest allegiance must be to the community of humankind, and the best principles of our practical thought must respect the equal worth off all members of that community” (Nassbaum, 1). In short, what she is trying to say is that hold other countries’ problems as they were of your own. This holds in contrast to patriots who hold their own highest allegiance to their nation, and the better improvement of their own country. The example given in this particular reading is that of Martin Luther King Jr who was supported when he spoke about civil rights, but vilified once he spoke about the violence of the Vietnam War, and his dis-support of the violence. When Martin Luther King Jr spoke out in support of the Vietnamese he in thus went against the interest of his own country, something that is not allowed to be considered a patriot. His action could be hailed as a cosmopolitism move since his allegiance was to the Vietnamese people and the “community of humankind” in a larger context. For a Patriot this sacrifice is warranted, those Vietnamese are the enemies and are working against the interest of our country, so we must fight them. The conflict between Cosmopolitism and Patriotism is one whose interest is the most important their nation, or the global community. In this context compromises is possible but on the larger whole there will always be a clear distinction between these two
ideologies.
The reading that I found interesting that closely blurred the line between being both cosmopolitism and a patriot was from the Shattered Mirror “A Traveler’s tale” and the story of Richard Burton. His story is fascinating because he was a global citizen; he traveled and learned much about different cultures, languages, and ideas all around the world but he still managed to be a European Patriot. Richard Burton was an explorer who traversed across the world, learning much about other nations and civilizations making him a global citizen. The fact that he was patriotic towards all of Europe and no a specific state, defiantly makes him a progressive figure. Even through his travels and learning of other nations Richard Burton never changed his biases as stated, “Burton is a standing refutation, to those who imagine that prejudice derives from ignorance, and the intimacy must breed amity. You can be genuinely engaged with the way of other societies without approving, let alone adopting them ”(5,Shattered mirror) Connecting back to the paper that you can still be a patriot while being a global citizen, since the just traveling can solidify your prejudices rather than depleting them. A cosmopolitan described in the paragraph above cares about the community of human kind that is their first priority towards becoming loyal to the human race. Richard Burton is fascinating because he was the first step towards outright cosmopolites, he need to exist by being a semblance of the idea of faithfulness towards a home country, and the world at large. He learned and practiced other cultures, yet he never embraced them, he was a patriot to the end.