ChinaGeek Charlie Custer dips into the patriotism-speak on the Chinese Intertubes:

A lot of people talk a big game on the internet, and Chinese people are no exception. When it comes to the topic of patriotism, especially, the gloves of rhetoric often come off and discussions can quickly descend into a cacophony of name-calling and fallacious assertions. Zhao Weilu, apparently, has had about enough, and wrote this post classifying the eight characteristics of fake “patriots” on the internet.

The rest is here.

I was originally going to comment on the substance of the post, but as I read through, I realized that the content dealt with some issues that I consider to be the minutiae of patriotism (e.g. opposition to the West, or how old is Chinese civilization).

All well and good, I suppose, since those are the actual references used by self-styled patriots here.

For me, it’s all beside the point. Sorry if this next part comes across as insufferably pseudo-intellectual, especially on a Monday, but let me set some mental ground rules.

First, I believe generally in the social compact theory of government/civilization. If we choose to live together, it makes sense to have rules and organizational structures. Some work better than others, but they are all artificial constructs.

Second, I don’t believe in inalienable rights, God-given or otherwise. This might be simplistic, but “inalienable” seems to presuppose an outside arbiter of morality. I don’t see any evidence of that being the case.

Third, from a moral philosophy standpoint, I’m keen on Rawls and the veil of ignorance. If nothing else, the imagery of that original position always suggests to me that we (human beings) are in charge of our social, political, and moral frameworks and that we have choices.

What does all this have to do with patriotism? Simply this: to be ardently supportive of a certain nation or political structure simply because of the accident of your birth is juvenile (Dawkins makes the same case against religion in The God Delusion). When those sorts of identifications lead to conflict between nations or groups of people, it’s the height of stupidity. Perhaps the most moronic statement ever uttered by a politician was George Bush, when he talked about the Middle East wars as being necessary to “protect our way of life” (I am paraphrasing).

Self identification with a group (nation, religion, sports team) is human, and everyone does it. But it is childish unless you base your identification on something logical. For example, Americans who base their support of American exceptionalism on a comparative historical study of political institutions/philosophy — you can argue against that it you wish, but at least it makes sense to prefer one structure over another.

This is quite different from the whackos who rail against “the terrorists” because “they want to take away our freedom.” I suspect that the opinions of those yahoos are based solely in group identification. Wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of the same people are against immigration.

Back to Chinese patriotism. I’m actually quite forgiving (comparatively) when it comes to China’s reactions to the West. This country has had a rough time of it, what with the West treating China like utter shit for about 130 years or so. Some leeway is in order.

But there are limits. Rabid patriotism in any form is offensive, and people who talk about the age of their civilization or cultural superiority as a way to justify their knee-jerk support of a nation are engaging in an emotional, immature form of discourse.

Seems to me that people who really believe that their country/culture/political system is the best can fall back on some reasonable, concrete arguments. Why do you love your country exactly? Would your opinion change if you had been born somewhere else? (I think unless you’re a Vulcan, most people would find the latter thought experiment difficult, if not impossible, which is significant in and of itself.)

I like those discussions even better when the word “love” is absent. I love my wife, and I love my cats (most of the time). I might prefer a country or political system, but I don’t “love” it. That’s just ridiculous. By allowing a term that is so loaded with emotional baggage to be injected into a  discussion of political philosophy, we’ve already given up any hope of serious, logic-based discourse.

To sum up: there’s a good reason why the folks who participate in online discussions and regularly fall back on patriotic language sound like nutjobs. Because they are.

Instead of discussing when, or to what extent, people are “true” patriots and who are simply poseurs, we should go one step further. If patriotism, and forms of self-identification, are arbitrary, irrational, and dangerous in their tendencies to exclude others, promote competition between nations and foment conflict, shouldn’t we be discouraging such beliefs as vociferously as we push back against stereotyping and racism?