I'm not sure what type of self-hatred this is. Someone wants to go to a bar, unsure of the legal status of another, color plays a factor but we know nothing about their socioeconomic status or if this writer is in California, the friend of the date asks not as if he is looking for something to get the writer on but rather to make sure they won't have issues. This does not imply anything about his opinions of the writer, and seeing how he is ok with the writer's presence I doubt that this is an issue of "patriotism", it's a legal concern.
Patriotism in America is about uniting under the flag and it's values; it's not about if you are a certain color. There's a reason why we have American patriots of all races; you don't really see that too often in other places. If you don't have those values, then you aren't one of us, that's what patriotism is by definition in this country and our context.
I choose not to list them all as I will give plenty of good examples of what this country stands for and I will get side-lined by some pathetic talking point from someone who actually still watches the news like it means anything; or a foreigner who hates my country while their own (typically UK) is failing as we speak. We need to get rid of oligarchs and those who are not of our country if we want those good things to keep going
Patriotism and religion are both cloths people wrap around themselves to convince themselves they're good people, so that they don't have to actually be good people
Again, you should go out more; for your own health if this is how you see "religious" or "patriotic" people.
At least to me:
Patriotism: the belief in the ideals of your country, in its people and its ability to strive towards that ideal state.
Nationalism: A strong identity tied to ones nation as it exists today (or in the past) at the exclusion of others or other thought
Yes, but that inherently dilutes the very conception of a group. This is pretty basic stuff. Groups must be exclusive or they have no meaning.
I understand this will make some people sad and, unfortunately, that's okay.
It makes me sad that I will never be Japanese. What a beautiful country. Man, am I sad. But that's alright, isn't it?
Why does it matter where I live?
I need only simply desire to live somewhere and be something and my wish should be granted lest I be sad, which the Japanese must obviously take very, very seriously. They must ensure I am not sad.
In fact, the comparison is even more apt because it becomes more obviously absurd.
Being an American, for instance, should not exclude anyone who wants to be a part of the group, and the only folks suggesting it should typically have one or two groups they specifically want excluded. That is obviously not all right, however much you’d like it normalized.
Also, accusing people of being intentionally dishonest isn't some good-faith observation, it's a personal attack and shouldn't be allowed unless you can substantiate your claims, which you cannot because they are baseless. People who do this dined out for far too long on being able to silence people with implications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
It's not like you have a choice between nationalism and enlightmentment, anomie is a likely outcome too.
Are people hurt? Are things unfair? Would it be kinder and more humane if we could see each others' souls, and trust prevailed? Absolutely.
But we can not. And there is an asymmetry to civilization---it is easier to destroy than to build. This makes division and exclusion (other names: protection, safeguarding, immune system, comment moderation, firewalls, safe sex) practical and essential. Do you want your startup's bank account "united and standing together" with some other startup's bank account? Division allows good things to remain good.
None of this is to say all gatekeepers are honest, all standards are fair, or that injustice doesn't exist. Everything is a work in progress. But if the worst you have to complain about is an inconsequential misunderstanding on a group date, count yourself lucky.
Before 1920 there were no passports or standardization of border controls but there were also no international human rights. If your state wanted to do you in they could just do it and not face any consequences. “Genocide”, “War Crimes”, and “Crimes Against Humanity” were all introduced in the next 30 years. Any formalization of your rights requires that the state “see like a state” and document your existence. In a lot of places, like China, there are restrictions on internal migration because a rapidly industrializing country faces challenging problems in development.
Today there was a great podcast episode about the origin of human rights as we know it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
