Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Anyway, I enjoyed your article and it really got me thinking, so here are some of my thoughts:
I think American patriotism and the idea of "Letting the World Be" are compatible. I can accept that the US has committed its fair share of war crimes and is guilty of belligerence and duplicity, because it has also done a lot of good for the world despite its flaws. The major wars in which it has intervened were fought against nations who imposed their will onto others with brute force, and for the purpose of restoring freedom. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist Indochina were all controlling forces who wanted to achieve domination, and the US intervened. We could argue about the ethics of the atomic bomb, but it resulted in peace, and it was the US who helped rebuild Japan's government after restoring independence to Japan's colonies. The US built other successful and independent governments in the Phillippines and South Korea. We're fed a lot of bullshit by the government, and the military is indeed often exploited, but it has also done a lot of good for the world and for that reason I consider myself a patriot. And that doesn't mean I necessarily share the same ideologies with other patriots or cheer whenever the government waves the flag. In fact, it's our freedom to question the government and express my own personal beliefs that makes this country great.
Speaking of patriotism and personal beliefs, why does The Boss tell Snake he has to choose between the mission and his beliefs? She even says that the only thing you can believe in with absolute certainty IS the mission. Maybe if she hadn't injected so much self-doubt into Snake he wouldn't have turned into such a lunatic. The Boss is one of the most confusing characters in the series for me.
Philanthropy is utopian, but that's the problem. It doesn't prove to be practical...it dissolves after the Big Shell because trying to expose Metal Gear activity through the media is useless if the Patriots control the media. The group ultimately has to use force to take down Liquid and SOP.
I wish I knew what The Boss had planned, it is pretty confusing how money could translate into reviving the Philosophers and doing anything good. The idea that Philanthropy is a model of The Boss' will confuses me too, because she wanted to obviously create a secret society with billions of dollars, not just scramble together a group of freedom fighters and then disband.
It's hard to love abstractions.
People say they love God or Jesus but what are the TANGIBLES people attach to? Community, shared culture, comfort, a higher purpose, and hope are some examples. These are easily felt and easy to love and they are encapsulated in abstractions like God.
It's the same with patriotism. Where is a country in the tangible sense? A country is an abstraction, a imaginary boarder that grows and shrinks (or entirely disappears) BUT contained within the IDEA is TANGIBLE culture, memories, community, family, neighbors, ect. But your country isn't your neighbor...your neighbor is your neighbor. Its too easy for IDEAS to be highjacked. And we see this with the corruption of The Boss' ideal world via Zero. In the end Big Boss was the closer to being right. Love whats close to you, what you can feel, not the abstraction.
And to the poster above, your knowledge of history sounds like you just came out of high school history class. Japan was offering terms of surrender through Sweden and Portugal MONTHS before the FIRST bomb hit.
The US didn't intervene in communist Indochina because people were oppressed. Often the US would supply FRINGE, MASS-MURDERING rebels to over throw stable and even democratic governments. Example: Indonesian anti-communists (which even the CIA called one of the worst genocides in modern history).
Not saying communism was good, it wasnt, but nations as a nebulous abstraction don't make moves out of love or morals, no only people do that, "interests" move nations. Any other reasons are just comforting platitudes.
LOVE PEOPLE, NOT FLAGS! Cause flags can't love you back.
I don't know much about the Indonesian purge, but given that there was an attempted coup just days before, I'd hardly call that a stable government.
A country is an idea, but it's made up of tangible things that define it, like culture, community, neighbors. My country isn't my neighbor, but by neighbor is part of my country. When Big Boss was a patriot, he was naive, but at least he did the right thing, killing The Boss to prevent nuclear war. If he had "loved what was close to him, not the abstraction," then he wouldn't have killed The Boss.
Would the world have been better off if Big Boss had stuck with an idea (like his country) rather than embracing war as an end itself and commanding a hearltess band of mercenaries? I sure think so.