Here's the quote: "The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice--and always has been." The soul and substance of patriotism is and always has been moral cowardice. What does that have to do with dissenters? This posture implies that anything patriotic is absolutely wrong because it is comprised of cowardly elements. Do you really wonder why I have a problem with taking the remark seriously. It's a broad stroke with a back-hand and it is patently ridiculous. Does anything get more essential than soul and substance?
Sammy wrote a lot about patriotism, some more (by the way, the original quote in this thread came from his notebook, so it wasn't satire): - "The Lowest Animal" - a Biography - Twain's Notebook
Full quote: "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been." ~Mark Twain
Giddy...perhaps the following Mark Twain quote will give you a little more insight on what he really means.... "Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let me label you as they may." In my opinion, Mark Twain knew more about patriotism than every American who currently drives an SUV with a yellow "Support Our Troops" ribbon ever will.
Giddy, others have posted more complete quotes, but let me just say this. He does not say patriotism is moral cowardice. He says the what CUSOMARILY RANKS as patriotism. The captialized portion indicates that he is making a difference between that and true patriotism. It is moral cowardice to accuse dissenters of being unpatriotic, and hoisting ones self as patriotic. Much like Sowell did in his article.
Umm -- how does being a "satirist" negate the point? I hear I can be satirical every now and then as well. Does this mean everything I say is immediately suspect? Twain was always against blind patriotism. He repeatedly and vehmently opposed those hwo hid behind "patiotism" during the Phillipine war. Try reading his essays in the book <I>Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race</I> to understand his perspective. Another good Twain quote: "Patriotism for one's country always, patriotism for one's government <I>when they deserve it</I>."
"Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings. Steal a little and they throw you in jail -- steal a lot and they make you king." - BD
It does make it difficult to tell, I think. A single line lifted out of context can be confusing. Was the intent satirical or not?
That's not what I see this quote as saying at all... The moral cowardice is displayed by those who couldn't or wouldn't make the tough choice in the beginning and only become bandwagon patriots when the evidence is clear that the tough choice made was the proper one.
I was looking for this one as an excuse to post in here. Anyways, this is what many of us here believe. This accusing of liberals of not supporting the troops exists for the purpose of taking the argument away from discussing the the actual war, the reasons behind it, it's necessicity, etc. Every excuse for the war is debunked, so they cower behind this "you don't support the troops" crap. I'm f*cking tired of it. Who really supports the troops? Who wants to increase thier pay? Who wants to increase their benefits? Who is willing to pay more taxes to pay for a war they didn't even want? Who wants to see accountability from people who poorly planned the war and added to the troops' risk? Actually caring about the troops and tying a ribbon on a tree to make people think you care are two different things. I don't think you care about the troops giddy. But since I don't have a PHD in economics, I guess my opinion isn't valid, while Sowell is definately 100% accurate in condemning millions of people, right? Of course, you've never ever disagreed with experts like Sowell, I can't think of one time when an expert's opinion has been posted on this board that you didn't agree with. . .
<b>NW and RMTex</b>: Hey, it was Twain's quote not mine. Do you think I've distorted its meaning? <b>Oski</b>: I'm not sure what you are ranting about or why... I know you're being sarcastic but then what? The "you don't support the troops" crap is an after-the-fact argument. We are there. How we got there or why we shouldn't be there (if that's your opinion) is no longer material. It's one thing to have an opinion. What you do with it is another thing entirely...
Giddyup; I don't agree with you a lot but I got a kick out of your rapid fire multi-directional response.
About the specific incident in question I agree with Sowell's point that we shouldn't rush to judgement on the Marine and I think he's totally correct in pointing out that things like this happen in war which might normally seem despicable unless you consider the stress and danger soldiers are under. I disagree with him about the applications of the Geneva Conventions and a few other things in that piece. As far as patriotism as long as we live in a democracy dissent is not only patriotic but neccessary. We can still support and respect our troops while criticizing the politicians who order them.
What exactly constitutes supporting our troops ? Not wanting them to be killed or maimed? Well we're 100% united there. Wanting them to be out of harms way as soon as possible? OK Wanting them feel proud of their scarifice? Yep! They did their duty in following orders. Feeling this country owes a debt to these men that we can only partially repay with health care and medical benefits? No argument. So I guess we all support our troops even if we have some disagreement over the policies of our democratic government. (thanks to Bill Hicks for pointing out the absurdity of this political manipulation)
Is it true or not true what he wrote about the requirement to be wearing the uniform of the national army in order to be under the auspices of the Geneva Convention?
