Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

 This is a s/o from the Southern pride threads.  I am curious about something.

For anyone who feels a regional (or state) pride, do you feel stronger about that region or state, or do you feel stronger about being American? 

I am asking which do you have greater allegiance to, in your heart of hearts, to your state/region or to America as a whole.

I will also tell you all that I will only be here sporadically to reply, I have a very crazy weekend (three giant parties that I am attending as a guest, not working for my business) plus I'm also preparing 10 parties for the business.  I say this so no one will be insulted or upset if I don't respond right away.  :-)

Thank you in advance for any and all responses.

by on Jun. 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Replies (71-80):
stormcris
by Christy on Jun. 11, 2012 at 7:24 AM

My answer would be no. It will be interesting to see but I do not think you would get a yes to that answer from anyone except perhaps some militia groups.

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting stormcris:

Family above all, but the rest are not different things where allegiance is concerned. To me they are all parts of the same whole, just different levels where my participation is expected. For instance, I am more involved in community than national as I would think most people would be. That does not absolve my duty to nation but it is just a different amount of need because of the level of the group. I hope that makes sense.

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting stormcris:

First to my family, then city, then county, then region of state, then state, then region of country, then country. Pride is a fulfilled sense of belonging and the smaller the group is the easier it is to connect with it. Each smaller unit transitions the connection with the larger unit. When people build off the smallest and extend, rather than weaken the connection, it becomes much stronger.  

 Now that I am home I am thinking about this.  I used both the words "feel stronger" and "allegiance".  Most people are ignoring the allegiance question.

You are talking here about connection; but where does your allegiance lie, with state or country?  Do you think that feeling a stronger connection to your state than your country means your allegiance should be to state over country?


 Allegiance is a different concept.  I have a friend who is from France, and she is married to a Portuguese man.  They have a daughter who was born here in NJ, and the daughter is an American.  We have often laughed about how they are none of them in the same family of the same nationality, and joked about what they would do if there were a world war.  Now, I don't think (and I certainly hope not) that France and Portugal would come to some catacylsmic war, and that the US would be involved, we'd be talking about some crazy nuts world war for that to happen.  But it does kind of beg the question, even in a hypothetical sense, where would each person's allegiance lie in such an event?

I'm trying to find out here, in this thread, if people think that their state and/or region is more important than their country.


Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
Louis D. Brandeis
romalove
by Roma on Jun. 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM

 

Quoting stormcris:

My answer would be no. It will be interesting to see but I do not think you would get a yes to that answer from anyone except perhaps some militia groups.

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting stormcris:

Family above all, but the rest are not different things where allegiance is concerned. To me they are all parts of the same whole, just different levels where my participation is expected. For instance, I am more involved in community than national as I would think most people would be. That does not absolve my duty to nation but it is just a different amount of need because of the level of the group. I hope that makes sense.

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting stormcris:

First to my family, then city, then county, then region of state, then state, then region of country, then country. Pride is a fulfilled sense of belonging and the smaller the group is the easier it is to connect with it. Each smaller unit transitions the connection with the larger unit. When people build off the smallest and extend, rather than weaken the connection, it becomes much stronger.  

 Now that I am home I am thinking about this.  I used both the words "feel stronger" and "allegiance".  Most people are ignoring the allegiance question.

You are talking here about connection; but where does your allegiance lie, with state or country?  Do you think that feeling a stronger connection to your state than your country means your allegiance should be to state over country?


 Allegiance is a different concept.  I have a friend who is from France, and she is married to a Portuguese man.  They have a daughter who was born here in NJ, and the daughter is an American.  We have often laughed about how they are none of them in the same family of the same nationality, and joked about what they would do if there were a world war.  Now, I don't think (and I certainly hope not) that France and Portugal would come to some catacylsmic war, and that the US would be involved, we'd be talking about some crazy nuts world war for that to happen.  But it does kind of beg the question, even in a hypothetical sense, where would each person's allegiance lie in such an event?

I'm trying to find out here, in this thread, if people think that their state and/or region is more important than their country.


 Thanks.  I feel (marginally) a little better now LOL.

ThatTXMom
by Platinum Member on Jun. 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM
1 mom liked this

 Roma, I think upi are seeing it form the wrong perspective.  You have compared the family with 3 nationalities who would they "back". 

But in the sense of the question you asked; region and state are part of the nation.  Therefore, instead of comparing nation vs nation, you have to keep in mind that region and state are PART of the nation. 

So maybe the better comparison might be: Which do you hold more dear, your lungs or your respritory system?  Because the lungs are part of the respritory system are part of the body.  If there is a breakdown of the lungs, the body suffers.

The scenario offered is like asking whose body is more important to you, your or your neighbors.

romalove
by Roma on Jun. 11, 2012 at 7:38 AM

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Roma, I think upi are seeing it form the wrong perspective.  You have compared the family with 3 nationalities who would they "back". 

But in the sense of the question you asked; region and state are part of the nation.  Therefore, instead of comparing nation vs nation, you have to keep in mind that region and state are PART of the nation. 

So maybe the better comparison might be: Which do you hold more dear, your lungs or your respritory system?  Because the lungs are part of the respritory system are part of the body.  If there is a breakdown of the lungs, the body suffers.

The scenario offered is like asking whose body is more important to you, your or your neighbors.

 You are arguing with that analogy more along the lines of how I feel, which is that all the parts of the union are important to the union in order for us to be the union lol.  You can't live without lungs, the entire body would cease to be.  ALL the organs are important to the whole.

I started this thread in the first place because the Civil War was probably the worst thing ever to happen to the country, and the repercussions from that gigantic rift in country are continuing to echo today.  When I see the postings about people feeling so attached to state and region and often more so than to country, it worries me that they don't "get" how connected we are supposed to be, that the whole is supposed to be greater than the sum of the parts, and it worries me that something could happen like that again.

ThatTXMom
by Platinum Member on Jun. 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM

 

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Roma, I think upi are seeing it form the wrong perspective.  You have compared the family with 3 nationalities who would they "back". 

But in the sense of the question you asked; region and state are part of the nation.  Therefore, instead of comparing nation vs nation, you have to keep in mind that region and state are PART of the nation. 

So maybe the better comparison might be: Which do you hold more dear, your lungs or your respritory system?  Because the lungs are part of the respritory system are part of the body.  If there is a breakdown of the lungs, the body suffers.

The scenario offered is like asking whose body is more important to you, your or your neighbors.

 You are arguing with that analogy more along the lines of how I feel, which is that all the parts of the union are important to the union in order for us to be the union lol.  You can't live without lungs, the entire body would cease to be.  ALL the organs are important to the whole.

I started this thread in the first place because the Civil War was probably the worst thing ever to happen to the country, and the repercussions from that gigantic rift in country are continuing to echo today.  When I see the postings about people feeling so attached to state and region and often more so than to country, it worries me that they don't "get" how connected we are supposed to be, that the whole is supposed to be greater than the sum of the parts, and it worries me that something could happen like that again.

 Using this analogy - what if one of the parts of the body (let's say one of the lungs) has a disease? 

1. You try to heal it

2. You try to stop the disease

3. If all else fails, you remove the lung

I can see why civil war is a concern for some people.  I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility, expecially as the country becomes so very split on just about every issue.  There is no compromise on either side, thus the divide is no longer a rift but a canyon. 

romalove
by Roma on Jun. 11, 2012 at 7:48 AM

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Roma, I think upi are seeing it form the wrong perspective.  You have compared the family with 3 nationalities who would they "back". 

But in the sense of the question you asked; region and state are part of the nation.  Therefore, instead of comparing nation vs nation, you have to keep in mind that region and state are PART of the nation. 

So maybe the better comparison might be: Which do you hold more dear, your lungs or your respritory system?  Because the lungs are part of the respritory system are part of the body.  If there is a breakdown of the lungs, the body suffers.

The scenario offered is like asking whose body is more important to you, your or your neighbors.

 You are arguing with that analogy more along the lines of how I feel, which is that all the parts of the union are important to the union in order for us to be the union lol.  You can't live without lungs, the entire body would cease to be.  ALL the organs are important to the whole.

I started this thread in the first place because the Civil War was probably the worst thing ever to happen to the country, and the repercussions from that gigantic rift in country are continuing to echo today.  When I see the postings about people feeling so attached to state and region and often more so than to country, it worries me that they don't "get" how connected we are supposed to be, that the whole is supposed to be greater than the sum of the parts, and it worries me that something could happen like that again.

 Using this analogy - what if one of the parts of the body (let's say one of the lungs) has a disease? 

1. You try to heal it

2. You try to stop the disease

3. If all else fails, you remove the lung

I can see why civil war is a concern for some people.  I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility, expecially as the country becomes so very split on just about every issue.  There is no compromise on either side, thus the divide is no longer a rift but a canyon. 

 A diseased lung cannot live on its own if you remove it.  Continuing with our analogy, of course.  :-)

stormcris
by Christy on Jun. 11, 2012 at 7:58 AM

If you take the following definition, how many civil wars have we really had?

James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, defines a civil war as "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies".

How many rifts are existing as we speak that threaten to be civil wars?

In most of the cases of existing issues that could spark violence, it would not be a matter of pride in a state or region that would be the issue.

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Roma, I think upi are seeing it form the wrong perspective.  You have compared the family with 3 nationalities who would they "back". 

But in the sense of the question you asked; region and state are part of the nation.  Therefore, instead of comparing nation vs nation, you have to keep in mind that region and state are PART of the nation. 

So maybe the better comparison might be: Which do you hold more dear, your lungs or your respritory system?  Because the lungs are part of the respritory system are part of the body.  If there is a breakdown of the lungs, the body suffers.

The scenario offered is like asking whose body is more important to you, your or your neighbors.

 You are arguing with that analogy more along the lines of how I feel, which is that all the parts of the union are important to the union in order for us to be the union lol.  You can't live without lungs, the entire body would cease to be.  ALL the organs are important to the whole.

I started this thread in the first place because the Civil War was probably the worst thing ever to happen to the country, and the repercussions from that gigantic rift in country are continuing to echo today.  When I see the postings about people feeling so attached to state and region and often more so than to country, it worries me that they don't "get" how connected we are supposed to be, that the whole is supposed to be greater than the sum of the parts, and it worries me that something could happen like that again.


Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
Louis D. Brandeis
ThatTXMom
by Platinum Member on Jun. 11, 2012 at 8:02 AM

 I have to agree with this.  It's political not regional.

Quoting stormcris:

If you take the following definition, how many civil wars have we really had?

James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, defines a civil war as "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies".

How many rifts are existing as we speak that threaten to be civil wars?

In most of the cases of existing issues that could spark violence, it would not be a matter of pride in a state or region that would be the issue.

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Roma, I think upi are seeing it form the wrong perspective.  You have compared the family with 3 nationalities who would they "back". 

But in the sense of the question you asked; region and state are part of the nation.  Therefore, instead of comparing nation vs nation, you have to keep in mind that region and state are PART of the nation. 

So maybe the better comparison might be: Which do you hold more dear, your lungs or your respritory system?  Because the lungs are part of the respritory system are part of the body.  If there is a breakdown of the lungs, the body suffers.

The scenario offered is like asking whose body is more important to you, your or your neighbors.

 You are arguing with that analogy more along the lines of how I feel, which is that all the parts of the union are important to the union in order for us to be the union lol.  You can't live without lungs, the entire body would cease to be.  ALL the organs are important to the whole.

I started this thread in the first place because the Civil War was probably the worst thing ever to happen to the country, and the repercussions from that gigantic rift in country are continuing to echo today.  When I see the postings about people feeling so attached to state and region and often more so than to country, it worries me that they don't "get" how connected we are supposed to be, that the whole is supposed to be greater than the sum of the parts, and it worries me that something could happen like that again.


 

ThatTXMom
by Platinum Member on Jun. 11, 2012 at 8:05 AM

 

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Roma, I think upi are seeing it form the wrong perspective.  You have compared the family with 3 nationalities who would they "back". 

But in the sense of the question you asked; region and state are part of the nation.  Therefore, instead of comparing nation vs nation, you have to keep in mind that region and state are PART of the nation. 

So maybe the better comparison might be: Which do you hold more dear, your lungs or your respritory system?  Because the lungs are part of the respritory system are part of the body.  If there is a breakdown of the lungs, the body suffers.

The scenario offered is like asking whose body is more important to you, your or your neighbors.

 You are arguing with that analogy more along the lines of how I feel, which is that all the parts of the union are important to the union in order for us to be the union lol.  You can't live without lungs, the entire body would cease to be.  ALL the organs are important to the whole.

I started this thread in the first place because the Civil War was probably the worst thing ever to happen to the country, and the repercussions from that gigantic rift in country are continuing to echo today.  When I see the postings about people feeling so attached to state and region and often more so than to country, it worries me that they don't "get" how connected we are supposed to be, that the whole is supposed to be greater than the sum of the parts, and it worries me that something could happen like that again.

 Using this analogy - what if one of the parts of the body (let's say one of the lungs) has a disease? 

1. You try to heal it

2. You try to stop the disease

3. If all else fails, you remove the lung

I can see why civil war is a concern for some people.  I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility, expecially as the country becomes so very split on just about every issue.  There is no compromise on either side, thus the divide is no longer a rift but a canyon. 

 A diseased lung cannot live on its own if you remove it.  Continuing with our analogy, of course.  :-)

 That is why analogies are rarely ever 100% comparable. Maybe the better analogy would be back the the family.

Is your Grandma's line more important to you (held more dear by you) than your Aunt Minnie's line?  If Aunt Minnie and her kids did something that totally and completely pissed you off, would you remove yourself from her presence and "disown" her/her line?  

But I agree with Storm in that our issues as a nation are not caused by geography so much as by philosophy.  

romalove
by Roma on Jun. 11, 2012 at 8:09 AM

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Roma, I think upi are seeing it form the wrong perspective.  You have compared the family with 3 nationalities who would they "back". 

But in the sense of the question you asked; region and state are part of the nation.  Therefore, instead of comparing nation vs nation, you have to keep in mind that region and state are PART of the nation. 

So maybe the better comparison might be: Which do you hold more dear, your lungs or your respritory system?  Because the lungs are part of the respritory system are part of the body.  If there is a breakdown of the lungs, the body suffers.

The scenario offered is like asking whose body is more important to you, your or your neighbors.

 You are arguing with that analogy more along the lines of how I feel, which is that all the parts of the union are important to the union in order for us to be the union lol.  You can't live without lungs, the entire body would cease to be.  ALL the organs are important to the whole.

I started this thread in the first place because the Civil War was probably the worst thing ever to happen to the country, and the repercussions from that gigantic rift in country are continuing to echo today.  When I see the postings about people feeling so attached to state and region and often more so than to country, it worries me that they don't "get" how connected we are supposed to be, that the whole is supposed to be greater than the sum of the parts, and it worries me that something could happen like that again.

 Using this analogy - what if one of the parts of the body (let's say one of the lungs) has a disease? 

1. You try to heal it

2. You try to stop the disease

3. If all else fails, you remove the lung

I can see why civil war is a concern for some people.  I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility, expecially as the country becomes so very split on just about every issue.  There is no compromise on either side, thus the divide is no longer a rift but a canyon. 

 A diseased lung cannot live on its own if you remove it.  Continuing with our analogy, of course.  :-)

 That is why analogies are rarely ever 100% comparable. Maybe the better analogy would be back the the family.

Is your Grandma's line more important to you (held more dear by you) than your Aunt Minnie's line?  If Aunt Minnie and her kids did something that totally and completely pissed you off, would you remove yourself from her presence and "disown" her/her line?  

But I agree with Storm in that our issues as a nation are not caused by geography so much as by philosophy.  

 I don't disagree with that; but I do think that a lot of the philosophy is forming along geographic lines.

And while I hate to even think this is true, I think it is true, that we aren't all being taught the same things depending on where we live.  That is going to influence how we view the same events and cause us to have different conclusions.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured