From: CHINA@UTKVX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Patriotism
Reply-To: CHINA@UTKVX.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:47:23 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.bitnet

>From:  UTKVX::IN%"chen%molly@SDSC.EDU"  "Shizhong Chen" 11-DEC-1992 06:48
>>From: CHINA%UTKVX.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
>>
>>I am not sure whether it is proper to categorize these VIPs simply in terms
>>of patriotism or un-patriotism. Even if they are patriots, they are much
>>more than that;
>
>At least, a patriot is not necessary a person of decency, and patriotism
>alone does not make a person noble. There are patriotic devils.

I believe I have made my different logic clear: Just because patriotism
is only part of a "patriot's" character, the "patriot's" behavior may not
be the consequence of his/her patriotism. As a result, the un-nobility
of a "patriot's" behavior (as well as his/her nobility) can not be
simply interpreted as of the nature of patriotism. There are "patriotic
devils", there are also "democratic degenerated men", and there are even
"communist gentlemen". Can you say democracy is not noble and communism is
gentle ?

>From:  UTKVX::IN%"chen%molly@SDSC.EDU"  "Shizhong Chen" 11-DEC-1992 06:48
>>In my view, German were not fighting for their own country, but other's.
>>Neither were they patriots; they were extreme racists.

>Could anyone convince them they were not patriots, that they were not
>fighting for their country? Patriotism means one's love to his country.
>Who is the judge to tell another person that his feeling of love in not the
>true love or "good" love? I don't think I can tell someone that his love
>is not love, but I can try to tell him that his love may not be healthy,
>may not be noble and may be bad for the subject of his love.

(1) The people of the world made German convinced of the nature of their
action in question, and German did not have difficulty understanding it.
In fact, they understood it so well that they never "fight for other's
country" ever since.

(2) "Patriotism means one's love to his country", but love to one's own
country is different from hatred to or "love to take" other's country.
"Hatred to or 'love to take' other's country" should of course be condamned,
but I don't see how "love to one's own country" should thus be morally denied.

(3) There are people who claim "hating others" for the sake of "loving
themselves". But I doubt their sincerity. I am sure if loving themselves
does not serve a good enough execuse, --- for their coming to you, they will
say they LOVE YOU, and for your goodness they will have to "take" you.

>>whether the people of a country are patriotic in an international conflict
>>should be up to the judgement of international community. That is why I
>>don't think German were "fighting patriotically",

>This is definitely a new concept for me. But my instinct tells me that a
> patriotism judged by international standard is already far away from the
> original patriotism we are discussing. Maybe this new definition of
>patriotism is a better one, but I have to digest it a while before I can
>completely understand it. Logically, it sounds strange, though. It is like
>people around me telling me that my love for my girlfriend (or whatever) is
>not up to the interpersonal/social standard and therefore is not a romantic
>love but something else. (Sorry to trivialize the topic, but I can't find
>a more proper analogy right now at two o'clock in the morning)

Very good example. I assure you that if I find you "un-nobly" "hate" or
"love to take" others who have never stepped into what you have, I won't
refer it to your love with your girlfriend. Your love still sounds noble to
me, and your "un-nobility" of "hatred to" or "loving to take" others will be
interpreted as being caused by something else.

>>More often than not, patriotism leads to nationalism.
>>
>>Democracy leads to nationalism too, in the sense that it not only has been
>>frequently used as an execuse, but implied the legitimacy of invading
>>other country for whatever reason including national interest --- as long as
>>there is a majority favoring vote. Can you say then democracy is not noble?

>First of all, no one has accused democracy of being perfect. Second, out of
>what feeling would the majority of a country vote for invasion of another
>country? Their love for democracy? Or still their patriotic or nationalistic
>feelings?

So you do agree with me, --- except the last sentence which confuses between
"patriotism" and "nationalism" that I believe are essentially different ?

>I have been reported to FBI and investigated by FBI, and I know a number of
>anti-CCP (does that make someone politically radical?) CSSs being checked by
>FBI while I know by far the majority (politically moderate?) CSSs were not
> checked by FBI.

>It is also not true that "none turned out to be evidenced as "patriotic" as
>being a spy." I knew at least two examples of agents that had been convicted
>by the FBI.

I apologized for the inaccuarcy of my last post. I'd also like to let you
accept my sincere respect for the way you express about your FBI experience.
What I am opposed to is not reporting to FBI, but reporting as a political
threat, which I believe is true of most of the cases.

>I don't necessarily appreciate what the FBI did, but it is
>not political moderate that makes someone being checked by FBI, it is
>something else.

My impression is that most reported cases are "political moderates".
If it is wrong, correct me. If right, isn't it an interesting coincidence
that all these "moderates" share "something else" making them being
reported ?

>I am not a law expert, and Raymond Luh does not owe me "an explanation".
> However, if I joined an activity led by a person and consequently risked
>something because pf this person or because he had misused my information or
>misrepresented me, he might owe me an explanation. At least he would owe me
>a courtesy of notice so I could get myself prepared for possible
>inconvenience.

(1) Agree, but isn't it funny that those who signed SUMFN have never
expressed any concern for the possibility of being "misrepresented",
whereas our Council Chairman who was never represented, hence impossibly
being misrepresented, is asking for "explanation" ?

(2) Another funny thing is that the "signing" of SUMFN was basically an
event after Mr. Luh's resignation. Now I have to ask, is our Council
Chairman so ignorant as to be unaware that SUMFN has never been Mr. Luh's
personal movement ?

(3) Furthermore, our Council Chairman put much of his attention to Mr.
Luh's "behind scene" activity after his resignation. Tell us what is wrong
with that. I wish our "major" legislator --- Council Chairman's
undertsanding to democracy was not that Mr. Wang Yang or Mr. Li Zuofeng
should be forbidden of the right of public activity, --- for their
resignation and for after their resignation, their activity has to
be "behind the scene".

>BTW, I don't quite understand your meaning of "personal" Chairman of IFCSS
>Council. Mr. Jinghong Li was elected to be the Chairman of IFCSS Council and
>therefore holds a title that is not as "personal" as you might think.

Well, I was trying to accurately refer to him. He sighed "just for himself",
which meant to me that he was not speaking from his official position. Sorry
if it doesn't sound good.

>Regards,
>Shizhong Chen

Thanks.

Jing Zhang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china