posted
I just read the following article by Larry Robinson and I am wondering what the rest of you think of these ideas.
What makes america great:
quote:We are great because of people like Tom Paine and his vision of a self-governing populace free from the tyranny of kings, corporations and churches; people like Thomas Jefferson who insisted on a Bill of Rights in our Constitution to ensure those freedoms we too often take for granted
quote:We are great because of people like Sojourner Truth, Susan B, Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and countless others who fought for universal suffrage; people like Frederick Douglass, John Brown, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. who held an enduring vision of the worth and dignity of all people. We are great because of people like Dorothy Day, Bill Haywood, Phillip Randolph, John L. Lewis, Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta and the thousands of union organizers who fought for and gave us the forty-hour work week, an end to child labor, workers health and safety laws, the minimum wage and many other rights we now take for granted
quote:We are great because of the hard work and risk-taking of generations of family farmers; because of the ingenuity and enterprise of small business owners and entrepreneurs; because of the blood, sweat and tears of millions of immigrants working for a better life.
quote:We are great because of our faith in both individual ability and our collective capacity to solve our common problems and to work for the common good. We are great because of a long tradition of voluntary public service. Throughout this country, in every community there are those who give their time to school boards or planning commissions, to homeless shelters or services for the disadvantaged, to environmental causes or local arts councils. They give their time and money out of a commitment to a better world, not because they expect some private gain.
What diminishes our greatness:
quote:More than anything else, we are diminished by pride. Consider the bumper stickers “Proud To Be An American.” Some people have, indeed, worked hard to become Americans. But the rest of us didn’t do anything to become Americans; we simply had the great good fortune to be born here. Can you imagine someone saying “I’m so proud that I won the lottery”?
We have too often confused the effects of greatness with its causes and the gifts of fate with just desserts. Pride is the absence of gratitude. Christianity, with good reason, has long considered pride to be the first of the seven deadly sins. In ancient Greece, the word for pride was hubris, which was associated with a dangerous arrogance and was, inevitably followed by nemesis, the great downfall.
posted
Growing up I think I was probably "proud" to be an American. Even though I hadn't done anything about that, I just had the good fortune to be born here.
After serving a mission in Guatemala for a couple years I learned what it meant to be grateful to be an American. Every day, living with people who didn't have the opportunities or blessings I had was very humbling. While I won't say America has the monopoly on good things, I will most certainly say that yes, I am very grateful to be an American.
Posts: 240 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am greatful to be an American. However, I have no problem using the word proud. I guess its not politically correct to be proud of who you are. Oh wait, it is if you are Black, Gay, or anything else. But when it comes to your country, its not okay? Its perfectly okay to be proud of being Black, and perfectly okay to be proud of being an American.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pride can have two different meanings. One of them is bad and one of them is good. Pride that you're better than someone is bad pride, the pride you take in constructing something is good pride. Pretty simple huh?
I take pride in America as something I've created. Ammidetly, I haven't done that much to create America; but I am part of what America is, and I am proud of what has been constructed. I like to think that that is a good pride.
posted
My pride is saved for those times when my actions actually contributed something to the outcome. On the other hand, I take quite seriously my responsibilities.
So, I guess you could say that I'm proud to be a productive and honorable participating citizen of my country. That'd be cool.
But the whole "being an American" thing had nothing to do with my actions, and it had a lot to do with the lovely arch of my mother's eyebrows. *grin
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First and foremost I am grateful to live in a country where I can practice my religion in (relative) peace. Where being killed or exiled for my beliefs is far less likely than it was for my great-grandparents.
But I am also proud to be an American. My reasons are very similar to Hobbes'. And to CT's, actually, although she calls that pride in being a "productive and honorable participating citizen of my country." To me, that's what being a proud American requires.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the pride you take in constructing something is good pride. Pretty simple huh?
While I think that the feeling of satisfaction that comes from a job well done is a natural and good thing, I separate this distinctly from pride. When the proud man builds a house, he looks on the house and sees the fruit of his efforts. He sees the nails he drove, the boards he cut, and the walls he painted. He feels that he is a good person because he has built a good thing and feels that it is just if he can live in such a house.
When the humble man builds, he looks at the house and sees not only the work of his hands but also the trees that grew in the forest to provide the wood, the people who made the hammer, the saw, and the nails he used to build. He sees the gifts of god and coincidences of nature that gave him the physical strength to build. He sees the teachers who taught him the skills he needed and the friends who supported him in his work. So when the humble man sees the house, he feels that he is a blessed man and feels gratitude that he was able to participate in building a good thing.
Pride is the opposite of gratitude. It is the failure to recognize the input of others and the gifts we do not earn. There is really no such thing as good pride.
[ October 14, 2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I wrote an essay july 4th 2001 that may or may not still be floating around ornery, and I think I posted it here as well, and then I ressurected it for a july 4th, I believe 2002, that touched on these themes.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm awed and grateful to be an American. I believe in the ideals that are America. I want to work to make the reality closer to the ideals.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question for me is, how much must the country mutate before people quit being proud to be an American? Isn't unthinking nationalism the easiest vice that those in power may use to work their will on others?
It's *easy* to be proud to be an American (at least in America ). Far harder is to own up to the faults of your country, or to have the honesty to look at your country at some point and say 'My country sucks and I am ashamed to live here.' Not to run from the problems of your country, but to improve on them.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Within that analogy though Rabbit, it seems like you can be proud of the accomplishment you made, while acknowledging all the other things that had to happen to make you able to do what you did. Can’t you humbly admire all of the things that had to happen to let you build that cabin and yet still take pride in the part that you did? I mean, even in your situation, he did see what he did. I think it's fine to have pride in what you have done, it's not negative until it traps you, and keeps you from seeing the acomplishments of others.
posted
For myself, I am grateful and proud to be an American. And I think that I can say pride...just as a son might say he is proud to be his fathers son because of who his father is.
NEvertheless, I believe that America is not now and never really has been a truly great nation. We are perhaps the greatest nation, but truly great? No.
We merely have that potential. More than any other nation in the history of the world, America has the potential for greatness. We have made great strides towards fulfilling that potential. Among many other things, we have actually, for all our little wars and conquests, exercised far greater restraint than any nation has ever exercised before, and we have done whilst wielding a far greater power than any nation that has gone before.
For instance, in the wake of WWII we stood at the brink of war with the USSR, and we had just used two nucleur bombs...the pattern in which the world would live really rested on our shoulders at that moment. And we chose not to use it. Do you think Rome would have used it? The Mongels? The Chinese dynasties? Of course, its a what-if game, but I believe they would have, given that sort of power. Becuase they exercised every last drop of power they had while they had it.
But our potential for world leadership will never be fulfilled while we have the greated gap between rich and poor as the country has ever seen. When we are backsliding decades in environmental issues (something that will become the most important things in the world in about 10 years...and about 5 or 10 too late...). When we are invading countries for oil.
When people driving the gas-guzzling SUVs that are causing us to invade countries for oil are waving their flags but giving nothing.
No...we are not great, because we are not fulfulling our potential for greatness.
But these are all opinions..maybe I'm just a stupid kid.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For instance, in the wake of WWII we stood at the brink of war with the USSR, and we had just used two nucleur bombs...the pattern in which the world would live really rested on our shoulders at that moment. And we chose not to use it."
I could be wrong about this, but weren't we out of nuclear bombs by that point? IIRC, by the time we were able to make a goodly number of 'em again, Russia had stolen the tech to make their own.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am greatful to be an American. However, I have no problem using the word proud. I guess its not politically correct to be proud of who you are. Oh wait, it is if you are Black, Gay, or anything else. But when it comes to your country, its not okay? Its perfectly okay to be proud of being Black, and perfectly okay to be proud of being an American.
actually, i'd put all three of those in the same category of rather ridiculous things to be proud of. having appreciation for where you were born makes sense to me. honoring your relatives and ancestors that suffered and/or fought for your rights makes sense to me. feeling comfortable with your own sexuality makes sense to me.
being proud of any of those things strikes me as ignorant.
quote:Pride is the opposite of gratitude. It is the failure to recognize the input of others and the gifts we do not earn. There is really no such thing as good pride.
Are you sure about that?
If your son or daughter saved an old man from a burning building and you felt pride of them, would this be an evil thing to feel on your part?
I would argue you're talking about a different sort of pride - the sort of pride in oneself that makes people arrogant, not the sort of pride you have when you recognize the virtue in another human being.
quote: I could be wrong about this, but weren't we out of nuclear bombs by that point? IIRC, by the time we were able to make a goodly number of 'em again, Russia had stolen the tech to make their own.
No, we had a few more, and were making them relativly quickly. There were at least 2 more bombs in the Pacific in case Japan did not surrender.
The soviets did not detonate a bomb until 1949. We had built up our stockpiles significantly by that time.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, we had a few more, and were making them relativly quickly. There were at least 2 more bombs in the Pacific in case Japan did not surrender."
THis isn't true, actually... it took us until the end of 1945 to produce more nuclear weapons ready for use. We started quickly producing weapons a couple years after the war.
Edited a stupid typo that changed meaning of post
[ October 15, 2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, You are wrong on this. The Manhattan project produced exactly 3 atomic bombs.
The bombs were based on two designs, one using Uranium and one using plutonium. The Uranium bomb was a very simple gun design, but required a large mass of fissionable material. There was concern that the amount of purified Uranium required for the bomb would prohibit ever mass producing such bombs so a Plutonium based bomb was also built. Plutonium has the advantage of having a much smaller critical mass than Uranium, but because of other properties it was determined that a plutonium bomb using the gun design was impossible so an implosion device was built. The Manhattan project produced 2 of the implosion devices and 1 gun device.
The implosion device was very complex and so it was decided that it had to be tested before deployment. One of the implosion devices was detonated at Trinity site in New Mexico before the bombs were used in Japan. They had only enough Uranium for one gun type bomb, so "little boy" was dropped on Hiroshima without any testing. The second implosion device, fat man, was dropped on Nagasaki.
Following the attack on Nagasaki, there were no atomic bombs left. No more had been made because the bomb grade plutonium and uranium were not available. It was months after the end of the war before the US had any more atomic bombs.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to chime in on the side of there being two different definitions of pride. The one being the arrogant attitude, the feeling that you are better than others and relying on your own strength: the strength of man, and feeling satisfaction in that.
But what about when I tell my children that I'm so proud of them when they accomplish something they had to work hard for? I'm also often telling them that they are no better than other people. My pride in this case involves a lot of emotions. I'm happy that my child overcame something, that she is growing. I'm grateful to God that I have such good children. I'm desiring to reinforce good behavior.
As far as being 'proud to be an American', I would have to say I'm grateful and I want to do what I can to make America a better place. Maybe what we should be saying is that we are 'proud to stand for what America is (or should be)'. It should be a place that stands for the freedom of all. We have much prosperity. We should be able to show compassion for any that need it, no matter the country they live in.
Americans, though, are no more or less than any other human on this planet. We did just get lucky and I marvel at that quite often. Shame on us for being so short sighted, so greedy with things, that we don't move to lift up the rest of the world to better living conditions.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, Goldner, and I seem to have different idea's about the august 1945 stock of nuker-bombs. I will admitt, my recall on this topic is hazy, as the last time I read anything about this was last spring when the book about Oppenheimer, "Brotherhood of the Bomb" came out.
It is my understanding that the Manhattan Project led to the construction of four atomic bombs, two of which were detonated over Japan in August of 1945. It is possible that included in these four, is the bomb used at Trinity. I am not sure which were plutonium and which were uranium bombs. It is my understanding that we had the ability to produce approx. 2 uranium bombs per month in late 1945.
I do believe though, that the point behind all this is we had the ability to produce many more. The main problem was enriching uranium or creating plutonum. The technical problems of mass producing Uranium were being solved day by day by the Los Alamos people. Had there been a need for more bombs, I believe we would have been able to produce them quickly.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I was just looking through "The making of the atomic bomb" (which by the way is a great book). Evidently Los Alamos had the plutonium core for a third implosion devise. Following the attack on Nagasaki, Groves said that Los Alamos could deliver another weapon as soon as the 17 or 18 of August (8 - 9 days following the attack on Nagasaki). As best I can tell from the book, this bomb was not assembled because of the Japanese surrender.
So, evidently, the truth lies somewhere between my original statement and Robespierre's.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But what about when I tell my children that I'm so proud of them when they accomplish something they had to work hard for? I'm also often telling them that they are no better than other people. My pride in this case involves a lot of emotions. I'm happy that my child overcame something, that she is growing. I'm grateful to God that I have such good children. I'm desiring to reinforce good behavior.
So why do you say "I so proud of you?", rather than "I am so happy because of you?"
Maybe this is just a semantic argument, and we just use the term "proud" when we me that some person or possession makes us happy. While there is some truth to these, I tend to think that there is meaning in words. I won't pretend to know how you feel, but I do know that when most parents say "I am proud of my child", it is in part because their childrens actions have made them feel they were "good parents".
Since I know some really crummy parents, whose children have accomplished great things and some excellent parents whose children are fairly rotten, I think it is a major error for parents to take pride or feel shame because of their childrens acts.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is a major error for parents to take pride or feel shame because of their childrens acts.
What emotions would you suggest, Rabbit?
quote:
"Your son used his Crayolas to redecorate the school lunchroom, Mr. R."
"Super-K! I'm so. . .JEALOUS!"
quote:
"Junebug saved Mrs. Krespaugh from that pack of wild dogs."
"Bored. I'm just sooooo. . .bored. Is there anything good on the tube?"
Someone who doesn't feel pleased when his children do what's right, or feel bad when his children make poor choices. . . that's known as an apathetic parent.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What difference does it make being american, russian, argentinian, israeli or iraqi? If we are the people of the Book, we don't belong here anymore. Used wanting to be american bad, realized it doesn't matter what passport you have, after all. Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Rather than pride and shame, I would recommend joy and sorrow. Pride and shame imply that the parent is responsible for the childs actions, an implication which denies free will and personal responsibility. If parents should ever feel pride or shame, it should be for their own actions as parents -- shame if they loose their temper or neglect their child, pride if they show wisdom and patience. If their wisdom and patience helps the child to make good choices, the parents should feel happy and grateful, but not proud.
I agree with you that parents should pleased when their children do well, I just don't believe that is the same as feeling proud.
[ October 17, 2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, I am incapable of having children. My husband and I have been trying to have children for over a decade with no success. It is one of the great sadnesses in my life. What does that have to do with any of this discussion? Are you suggesting that because I am not a parent, that I don't know what it means to love someone? Are you suggesting that because I am not a parent, that I don't know what it is to nuture, that I don't know what it is to sacrifice my own desires to help someone else? Or do you simply mean that I have no rights to discuss an important issue because I haven't gone through the proper right of passage.
Isn't it just possible that someone who has spent her whole adult life teaching and loving children, while desperately trying and failing to have her own, might just have learned something about what it means to be a parent and might just have some insight that parents often miss because they are too close to the trees to see the forest.
Perhaps I will never be able to fully understand what it is to be a parent, but the simple fact that you asked me that question shows that you do not even partially understand what it is like to have lived my life.
If you disagree with my ideas, then attack them. Attacking my qualifications for holding those ideas is cruel.
[ October 17, 2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, In the past week, you've been making repeated unproked pot shots at me. What have I done to offend you? Please, if you are offended by my opinions, then attack my opinions not me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny thing, pride... If it were only a sin, then I'm relatively certain that I'd have already taken the short bus to hell.
Pride has made us who we are, as a species and as individuals... developed us, built us. And yet to act on pride and pride alone?
So many people have commited such atrocities(sp?) from fear in the guise of pride- especially national pride. I don't really see that as the fault of pride, though. Pride can be good or bad, great or terrible- actually, it's a lot like human beings. That is, you pretty much have to judge the action, and understand the person and their motive.
posted
Not a parent - haven't tried - has taught kids and has an adored baby brother, but sees them more as amusements than anything.
From the perspective of an adult kid, I hate that my dad's source of joy in me is directly tied to how well I'm doing. It means that if I'm not, then not only am I unhappy, but I've failed my parent as well. It also means that when I'm doing well, I don't want to say anything because he's just so dang thrilled. You know, if you're not happy to have me when I'm failing, you don't get the shout-outs at the award shows when I'm not. There will always be people to share successes with; but failure is played to an empty house. That's the definition of family - to be there when the world isn't.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im grateful that I was born an American and proud of some of the American attitudes I hold and love. People have correctly commented that it's rather strange to be proud of something you had no say in-such as your genetics, your lineage, or the nation you were born in.
Im not the least proud of being a cracker from Kentucky, because it's not as though I chose that state and ethnic heritage. This also means Im not ashamed of it, either.
I think its different with children though. The impact of a parent on their childs life is incalculabe, for better or worse. Why shouldnt a parent be proud when their child does something honorable or good? Being proud doesnt necessarily mean the parent takes entire credit for the childs action, but that they had a big part in raising a human being capable of doing something good and noble. Being "happy" for the child is insufficient, and in my experience hurtful to the child as well. What child doesnt want their mommy and daddy to be proud of them? As a boy one of the highest praises I ever received from my father was the classic, "Im proud of you, son." Vice versa, as well.
Pride, like any emotion, only becomes a "sin" when it is excessive. When pride becomes vainglory, anger becomes hatred, etc., then it can be considered a sin. Pride, anger, fear, selfishness, these are natural elements of humanity. We're born with them, and no matter how much we apply the veneer of civilization, they're quite useful. This doesnt mean they cannot be abused. Pride can motivate a man to continue to do the right thing, shunning that which he considers shameful. Vainglory would be when he does a dishonorable, shameful thing because he can't bear other people thinking him shameful. Anger and fear, two of the most useful and natural of emotions, help us survive as well.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pride, like any emotion, only becomes a "sin" when it is excessive.
Wayne, Since "sin" implies a religious prospective, I'm curious to know what religion you follow. Within the Christian religious tradition "pride' is the first and foremost of the deadly sins. It is not "excessive pride" but pride of all kinds which are condemned as sins. While it may legitimately be claimed that the word "pride" in modern english has different meanings than the word used in ancient times, that is far from saying the pride is not a sin until it becomes excessive. Would you also say that a little greed is not a sin, a little gluttony is not a sin, a little lust is a good thing and so on?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is actually a very tempting debate for me, and I've been considering just how to weigh in on it.
To briefly address the original topic... I am both proud and grateful to be an American, but all in all I would have to say I am more grateful than proud. I have reached and passed the age of choice where I could have chosen another country to be home. I actually have considered doing just that, but I haven't. I don't think it is improper to have pride in my country. I certainly don't begrudge anyone else pride in theirs.
Since the topic had become pride in gerenal, I'll touch that as well. Pride most certainly can be a downfall, I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. I've chosen an occupation (architecture) in which pride has led to to just that downfall of many professionals. I believe that I will be susceptable to pride my entire life, because what I do, the designs I create, are entirely mine. This isn't a circumstance where credit and accomplishment are spread across many people. This is certainly true of the finished project, where builders and contractors have labored to accomplishment, as well as the workers who created the materials. But not the design.
I suppose an analogous comparison would be artists. Is it wrong to begrudge them pride in their work? After all, it is theirs and only theirs. If credit were to be shared, it would only be with God, who gave them their abilities (if they were inclined to follow such beliefs). If pride is not what they feel, then what is it? In this case, I do not see a distinction between joy, happiness, elation, and pride. If they are not allowed to feel these emotions, then why bother?
And the final discussions about pride in ones family, I believe there was some concern raised over the source of parental pride... If you are proud of your child, then you are feeling both joy for them, as well as some joy for yourself for raising them to be such a person. I believe that shame cuts the same way. I'm certainly not a father yet, so that is just whatever surface feeling I haven't tested yet...
Well, that was likely confusing and disjointed enough, so I'll leave it at that.
posted
I believe the biblical verbiage for reinforcing good behavior is "well pleased". I also like telling my children I'm "glad" such and such happened.
Wayne- I'm not sure what cracker means, but Lincoln was a poor boy born in Kentucky. When I think of Lincoln, it doesn't make me feel better about myself. I feel like I want to be better. You know. Like that guy in "As Good as it Gets".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are situations where I think pride - together with the arrogance and the feeling of superiority over other nations - is actually a good thing, as it plays a crucial part in the survival of a nation. Poland ceased to exist in 1795, and it didn't gain independance until 1918. During this time, the countries which divided Poland between themselves actively tried to deprive the Polish people of everything that made them Polish. They would have suceeded. What I think played a major role in the constant struggle for independance, was exactly the pride of being polish. If you look at the literature of this period - the literature of the people we consider our greates writers and poets (there is actually a word we use to speak of them, "wieszcz", which can be loosely translated as "bard/prophet") - this literature deals first and foremost with the national identity, with the pride to be polish, and with the superiority resulting from being Polish. If you get a chance, read anything by Mickiewicz, Slowacki, Sienkiewicz. This was the literature written "for strenghtening if hearts". It was supposed to encourage the Poles to keep on fighting. And they did. They did and they loved their country, their homeland, and they felt proud to be Polish, they felt proud to oppose the oppressors, and they felt better than others. (Incidentaly, if you look at the dates again, you'll noticed this was also the era of romanticism - a trend very susceptible to such ideals).
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that I'm pretty sure things would have gone very differently if it wasn't for that very feeling of pride.
[ October 17, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Kama ]
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After that fiery rant, I just wanted to add that I always found the whole "Martyrology of the Polish nation" thing (one of Mickiewicz's catchphrases, btw) kinda funny.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When all else fails, play the victim in an argument.
quote:Leto, I am incapable of having children. My husband and I have been trying to have children for over a decade with no success. It is one of the great sadnesses in my life. What does that have to do with any of this discussion? Are you suggesting that because I am not a parent, that I don't know what it means to love someone? Are you suggesting that because I am not a parent, that I don't know what it is to nuture, that I don't know what it is to sacrifice my own desires to help someone else? Or do you simply mean that I have no rights to discuss an important issue because I haven't gone through the proper right of passage.
I'm saying that you are telling others to define what "pride" in their childrens' accomplishments should be, all according to "the Word of Rabbit™". I'm wondering where you are getting such a self-righteous and selfish attitude from, since you have repeatedly demanded that everyone here define something as you define it, because no other definition works for you. I'm implying you don't understand what "pride" Scott is talking about when talking about his kids, because you must have not ever felt proud for someone you care about deeply when they accomplish something grand. Or, if you have felt that way, you are using a different word, and are damning Scott for not using your definition and terms.
quote:Isn't it just possible that someone who has spent her whole adult life teaching and loving children, while desperately trying and failing to have her own, might just have learned something about what it means to be a parent and might just have some insight that parents often miss because they are too close to the trees to see the forest.
I think it's equally—if not more—possible that someone who has spent their entire life loving and teaching children to feel so haughty about their own self-assumed qualifications that they are completely and utterly convinced that no one else can "do it right" for the children but them. In fact, I've seen both non-parents and parents do it. Oddly enough, the kind of pride you are exhibiting with those sentences is exactly the kind of pride I would wager you are condemning in others.
quote:Perhaps I will never be able to fully understand what it is to be a parent, but the simple fact that you asked me that question shows that you do not even partially understand what it is like to have lived my life.
Nor you mine, but in case you haven't gotten the drift—that's my point. You're condemning others for their feelings without having a whit of understanding about their points of view. Instead, you are demanding and dictating what the points of view in the discussion should be, all according to your own, personal observations.
quote:If you disagree with my ideas, then attack them. Attacking my qualifications for holding those ideas is cruel.
The only thing I disagree with is your insisting that everyone else here view things from your own view, and that you have all but said outright that you are more qualified to judge.
quote:Leto, In the past week, you've been making repeated unproked pot shots at me. What have I done to offend you? Please, if you are offended by my opinions, then attack my opinions not me.
I've attacked nothing but your opinions. You're taking them personally, because you are so attached to your opinions as being gospel, that because I refuse to agree with you on even the smallest portion, you are assuming that I am lashing out at you. However, like I said from the other thread where you began demanding everyone use your definitions for terms, your biggest flaw is that you are not using literal translations or definitions. I find it ironic that you are playing the victim of me now, when you were the one who lashed out at me on the other thread, and after I pointed out the connection between this one and the other one—and please, don't try to paint it as a coincidence that you post about nationalism, patriotism, and "American Pride" in the same week—you didn't even bother to reply. Not only that, but you've made repeatedly inflammatory posts on threads not of your making, the most memorable to me being your rude (almost hateful) comments about Texas in the "Australia" thread. So, before you continue to either dictate how others should define words you are not properly (as per the English language) defining, before you take a self-righteous stance again when your opinions are questioned, and before you play the victim just because I'm not agreeing with you, maybe you should think about toning down the manner in which you respond to posts or posters who do not even slightly agree with you.
Gee... who'd have thunk I would post that last sentence to someone else? (maybe censoring me and deleting my posts worked, Kathy)
Kama:
quote:If you get a chance, read anything by Mickiewicz, Slowacki, Sienkiewicz. This was the literature written "for strenghtening if hearts". It was supposed to encourage the Poles to keep on fighting. And they did. They did and they loved their country, their homeland, and they felt proud to be Polish, they felt proud to oppose the oppressors, and they felt better than others.
That's the thing about "pride"—is it helpful when it urges people to ideals such as liberty, freedom, and safety/strength/pick-your-adjective? I think the problem with "pride" is that if it's a means to an end, it has potential for positive outcome. If it's an end unto itself, it's negative (and can become harmful). That's not even getting into the various degrees between. My issue with Rabbit's premise is that we are being told to only judge from that negative end of the spectrum only, and in a totally absolute, black-and-white manner. Basically, the same problem I had in the other thread (along with the misrepresentation of definition to begin with).
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, you seem to be taking umbrage at the fact that The Rabbit seems to be dictating how everyone else should feel, but this was a direct response to Scott R's question:
quote:What emotions would you suggest, Rabbit?
Emphasis mine.
Whatever else The Rabbit has said on other threads—I haven't seen it, but that's because I don't hang out here so often these days—I think you're being tremendously unfair to her here.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Within the Christian religious tradition "pride' is the first and foremost of the deadly sins. It is not "excessive pride" but pride of all kinds which are condemned as sins. While it may legitimately be claimed that the word "pride" in modern english has different meanings than the word used in ancient times, that is far from saying the pride is not a sin until it becomes excessive. Would you also say that a little greed is not a sin, a little gluttony is not a sin, a little lust is a good thing and so on?
As a Christian, this is not what I was taught. I was taught that the seven deadly sins were *all* excessive manifestations of what would normally/naturally be good things. Lust is desire taken to dangerous (bad) extreme. Rage is anger taken to extreme. Gluttony is hunger/thirst taken to extreme. Pride is a sense of one's accomplishment taken to extreme. In and of themselves, these natural feelings are not bad because they are part of us and part of life (created by God), but when they become excessive, when we concentrate on them to the exclusion of all else or to the detriment of ourselves and others, *then* they become sin.
I am very grateful to be an American, but I sometimes am proud of some of my fellow Americans who take actions that I feel make this country the wonderful place that it is (such as certain protestors, certain volunteers, certain clergy, certain civil servants, etc.) Not all Americans make me proud, just as I'm not proud of all my own actions, but I strive to be a contributing part of all that I think is good about America, and recognize those who I think are such.
Why is it wrong to appreciate our own actions (as in the housebuilding example) while it is right to appreciate others' actions?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think maybe the problem here is that we don't have a good, um...diminutive for pride. For that matter, we don't have a great diminutive for lust, either, which is why we hear the term being bandied about so much along with claims that Christianity is wrong for forbidding it. It's all a misunderstanding because English doesn't have words meaning anything weaker. *sigh*
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Pride and shame imply that the parent is responsible for the childs actions, an implication which denies free will and personal responsibility.
To some extent, parents are responsible for their children's actions. Remember Veruca Salt from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Her parents were also to blame for her nastiness, as the Oompah-Loompah's pointed out.
I catch what you're saying, Rabbit, but the argument seems largely semantical. Most people can distinguish between pleased-pride and arrogant-pride, and don't really need a seperate term to distinguish between the two. When I tell my buddy that I'm proud of Junebug for the way she behaves, he knows instinctively that I am not saying, under my breath, that his children are miscreants and ne'er-do-wells by comparison.
[ October 18, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Martyrology.
