Mike Van Horn
Mike Van Horn
  • 2
    |
  • 5
    |
  • 0
    |
  • 5
    |
  • 47
Mike Van Horn
Dmitry, I see this is an old post, but I just now found it, and I want to respond.
I wonder, where do you live? What country? Do you feel no pride in your country? 
Patriotism means pride in your country--either the country of your birth or your adopted country.
If you feel that having pride in your country is a negative, and should be replaced, what would you replace it with? Some larger agglomeration of nations?
Do people in EU feel patriotic toward Europe? "I'm proud to be a European." How often do you hear people say this?
I agree with Ryan Douglas that you err in conflating patriotism and nationalism. 
I can just give you my personal experience. I am proud to be an American. I am proud of the tremendous diversity of people who have come here and become Americans, raising their kids to believe in liberty and personal choice and opportunity. I see it working for them. I see how well they are accepted and included and allowed/encouraged to get ahead. 
I'm proud to see that America is a magnet for people from all over the world. 
I'm proud to see that when there are disasters in the world, the US is in the forefront of nations sending help to tackle it and take care of people. 
I'm proud to see the entrepreneurship of America--the iPhones, Google, Facebook, Uber, rock and roll, jeans, popular movies--that set trends across the world.
Every one of these statements has a negative; none are done perfectly.
But none of these sources of pride in my nation casts aspersions on other nations. They are not either/or, zero sum attributes. Just like I can be proud of my family without feeling negative about your family. 
I think that pride in your country goes along with responsibility toward your country. Just like since I have pride in our daughters I want to make sure they have what they need and avoid making serious mistakes. 
Thus my pride in my country means I deplore both our presidential candidates--two very flawed choices for leader, just as I may deplore choices made by my children.


Mike Van Horn
Western Europe and the United States have certainly had their share of widespread protests, occasionally violent. Some turn out to have widespread support, and some are the righteous anger of a sliver of the populace. 
The big difference is how the authorities react. This ranges from violent crackdowns to acquiescence. We like to see the authorities do their best to prevent violence, property damage, and looting; to allow the protest to proceed; and to arrest those who engage in violence.
How can you say whether most of the people support the protesters? There's really no way of knowing. But is that a reason not to protest? 
It sounds like you are saying people shouldn't protest if the authorities are likely to react strongly and crack down. But then there could never be any serious protests, because one of the things people protest against is authoritarian, over-reacting government authorities. 
It seems likely to me that no protest is initially supported by a majority of the people who are affected by the situation. Some are strongly on the other side, but most are not caught up in the issue, or they don't care enough to fight about it. 
Think of the overthrows of government caused by popular protest and uprising: Tunisia, Egypt, United States, Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen. All these were started by a small minority and gradually pulled in more and more people. All resulted in regime change, but not necessarily the change the protesters sought. Only Tunisia, the US, and  Ukraine led to the desired outcomes. In Yemen, Syria, Russia the protests led to situations much worse than before.
Even so, I would say that in every one of these nations the people were justified in protesting and rising up against the situations they faced.