I have been mulling over the way people see loyalty. For some people being loyal to someone or something (country, for example) is about seeing it as perfect. They either do not see imperfections or they don't admit it to themselves or confront it in any way. For such people the concept of being critical of someone they are loyal to is alien. For me personally, criticism is not spared for people I love or admire; I do not have to see them as perfect. I will critique them upfront, not behind their backs. In a way I have weighed in on their imperfections and in spite of all of it, I feel loyal to them. I do not admire them or feel loyalty because they are perfect; it is because in spite of their imperfections they are still exemplary in my eyes. They are still worth admiring, looking up to, being loyal to.

It seems to me that people of the former type will find it hard to understand or will misunderstand my propensity for critiquing people whom I admire because they might assume that my critiques mean I do not really hold them in high regard. That is not true at all though. To me admiring someone in spite of their imperfections is a truer measure of admiration as opposed to admiring someone whom I imagine to be all perfect. I would think that when people create an imaginary perfect version of a person and admire it, their admiration or loyalty is contingent on the continuation of a myth. It's fragile in that sense. In my case admiration and loyalty is rarely given because it does follow from seeing someone/thing for what it really is, and few things will pass the check point. But once they pass, their position is more or less intact.

A Hindi metaphor comes to mind. They say "chaand mein bhi daag hote hain", which means that even the beautiful moon has spots on it. I would think that someone who loves the moon because they assume it to be flawless does not really love the moon... someone who loves the moon in spite of its minor flaws genuinely does...