I have always been blindly patriotic. Or rather, since 1994 I have been blindly patriotic. I have an innate feeling of connection, responsibility or love for my country. I feel similar feelings when it comes to the school I went to (Westville), the province I grew up in (KZN), the sports teams that come from those areas (The Boks, the Sharks, the Proteas, and the Dolphins), and the company I work for. I get very upset when people I love want to leave South Africa permanently, and I get very upset when my sports teams lose.
But…
Recently I have started to question some of the value of this. Hasn’t changed where my heart lies, but I do sometimes wonder about things such as…
• Do I have more in common with someone from Pofadder than I do with someone from Moscow who has studied similar things to me, likes similar music and reads similar books?
• Who do I have more of an obligation to, an illegal immigrant who wants to live in and make a positive contribution to South Africa, or a South African who wants to live elsewhere and continually tells everyone outside this country how we are falling to pieces?
• If Someone wants to play sports for a country other than South Africa professionally, is that any different from me going to work in London for a couple of years?
15 comments:
does this post mark a major shift in perspective? or just fiddling with the ideas?
Not so sure....
Fiddling with ideas I guess. But also trying to figure out
1) what value loyalty adds?
2) Whether it adds more value to the group or the individual?
3) Whether it adds value at the expense of other groups?
4) Whether loyalty to the `bigger group' is actually more important?
I still feel, people are able to achieve more as a group than as individuals, and normally that `team ethic' actually brings the best out of people.
1) Lots (if I understand the sense in which you use it)
2) It can only add value to the group by adding value to the individuals.
3) It needn't, but it does.
4) you mean humans?
my view is that the nice types of group loyalty are best formed when people CAN CHOOSE WHICH GROUPS THEY WANNA JOIN.
I assume that the bit you shouted means you feel loyalty for example to your country of birth should not be expected?
I am all in favour of your whole view of free immigration, and people being allowed to move to where they would be happiest...
My one issue with it is... the spirit of entitlement. People often seem to forget the concept that rights come hand in hand with responsibilities.
It seems a valid argument that people will flow to a country that is doing well, and away from a country that is doing badly and needs help to do well.
Not such a fan of that.
people like me don't forget that rights come with responsibilities, we just deny that it's true.
me having rights implies that YOU have responibility not me.
"... that is doing badly and needs help to do well."
This a common objection and is really complicated, because the empirical stuff it very unclear and the philosophy is also difficult. needless to say I have a very different perspective.
I don't think talented people should be treated as means to an end (helping their country) even if it did unambigously help. We shouldn't deport smart politically savy North Koreans back there even if it might help the country (I'm VERY against deporting Zimboes)
but when we hear about doctors leaving poor countries it looks bad, but in most cases they wouldn't have got the training in the first place if they couldn't leave. then they send loads of money back home, and often move home as well. but I agree that it does also have it's down side.
oh. and I also have a problem with people's sense of entitlement. Namely the people who are born into rich countries, demand all sorts of welfare and protection and think that their wages being a few % lower is a great reason to keep foreigners out.
I don't think smart/productive people should be restricted or used as a means to an end...
I am just wandering at what point we `owe' the society in which we are brought up.
I happen to be an actuary. The Society of Actuaries regularly talks of us owing the Profession something... as in, since we get the benefit of being associated with the profession, we should make an effort to contribute to conventions and through studies etc.
Schools often look to old boys for allegiance...
As does the country.
The question is, what obligation is there?
I agree about the benefits of money & skills flowing back. It would be interesting to see how much money is flowing back to SA from the (totally unsubtantiated but rumoured to be) 1.3million saffers in London?
It depends on the sense of owe we use. We owe nothing other than to obey the law and pay taxes (within reason). Same for all the schools and professional bodies.
That's not to say that things wouldn't be better if people did feel like they owed stuff.
Personally I'd be prepared to go to great lengths to signal my loyalty to a country that let me in and didn't treat me like a second class citizen. I resent the idea that I owe a country anything just because I was born there (this isn't a dig at south africa)
Do you feel like a second class citizen here?
No I was talking about England, where I was one.
I thought England was supposed to be quite good with allowing foreigners to come work there?
I wonder which countries are?
Presumably Dubai?
Xenophobia is also a big issue. Goes back to the `group mentality' thing...
It is quite sad to see how many well spoken congoleese doctors and engineers are working as car guards in SA.
Don't have stats to back that up... but it seems that way.
I suppose they are, relative to other countries and I admire that. But it did upset me that my visa status ruled me out of many better jobs. Also 18 year old brits leap frogged me at work. I had to train a few to the same job but they had a much better deal. But hey, I knew what I was doing and its WAY better than keeping me out.
it is sad.
also, refering to the saffas sending more home. I'd guess not that much (though what do I know). but saffas are a special case
I do find it strange that the US, and Australia shouldn't be pioneering free migration.
Australia seems to headhunt top professionals and others they feel can add value where they have shortages... apparently they need hairdressers? Makes sense from a cold facts point of view...
and I suppose if people could just flow where they wanted, crime would be tougher to manage?
If people pay the tax, I reckon they should be able to live where ever they want. But it is difficult to control things like who should have a say as to who the government should be?
And presumably only those who make a contribution to society should be able to join? What about probationary citizenship?
...or should countries just accept people who have already been helped to become productive citizens elswhere?
it doesn't make sense! since when does it make sense for the government to make that kind of decision? that is the exact point of markets.
crime may be a problem. my bias makes me unreliable.
Depending on whether we're talking politically possible or what I'd like my views vary. I'm not a fan on being demanding on immigrants (we're the exact opposite on citizens), but if that's what it takes that's fine. delay voting rights by some fixed time.
Suggestions: sell citizenship or green cards in an attempt to maximise revenue (and allow banks to loan immigrants the money). How about a norm of only one passport change so its a big decision.
If there are any people I HATE, it's the extremists involved in the Motoons disaster or terrorism in rich western countries.
Apart from being psychotic murderers, they drive much anti-immigrant feeling and make me believe that free immigration actually wont work in practice (which it hurts me to say). And they dress it all up in pious righteousness. fuckers
Post a Comment