Church and Nation: A Credal Nation, Part 2
At the end of my last installment, I noted that credal nationhood has always been more about the state than about the nation (properly understood). Indeed, the concept of a credal nation makes no sense whatsoever without reference to the state, which is the definer and the keeper of the creed.
Despite my promise to take that up the relationship between state and credal nation in this installment, I'm going to save it now for the next, because there is another point that I think needs to be addressed and discussed.
Reading the comments on the last installment, I have once again been surprised by the strong—and strongly negative—reaction to my suggestion that there could be an American nation that is not credal. And again, this is not coming from neoconservatives or liberals who think that a "credal nation" is preferable to a real one.
I suspect that my failure to anticipate this has something to do with my own experience. Having just turned 40, I still live within a leisurely six-hour drive of every place where all of my direct ancestors, on both sides of my family, have lived for any length of time since coming to this country. If you were to draw a triangle on a map, with the first corner at Rockford, Illinois; the second at Bay City, Michigan; and the third at New Albany, Indiana (or, for convenience' sake, Louisville, Kentucky), you would encompass the entire area in which lived (starting in 1832) the Richerts and Foremans and Janasiks and Gwizdalas whose various interactions brought about my birth.
To me, this area is home, and I don't feel out of place among any of the people who live in it. (Except perhaps the Swedes here in Rockford, but as always they are the exception that proves the rule.) On another comment thread, NGPM wrote, "When you are at home, you know you are." Just so.
From that experience, it still puzzles me that people who do not doubt the existence of a German nation or a Polish nation or an Italian nation find the very possibility of an American nation to be so strange. I'm not suggesting that, in whatever form it may exist, the American nation is on par with those other nations, but simply suggesting that the automatic dismissal of any possibility that there could be an American nation strikes me as both conterintuitive and unhistorical.
Try telling a Northern Italian that he has more in common with a Sicilian than the Dutch, (pre-1848) Germans, Yankees, non-Yankee English, French, and a smattering of Poles who make up the population of Western Michigan have with one another. The latter, while still recognizably distinct as groups in many important ways, also have ties of tradition, history, and genes from 200 years or so of living closely together. Those ties are not "credal" but organic. Perhaps we can't "define" them, but again, would anyone say that the failure to offer a succinct definition of what it means to be Polish or German proves that there is no Polish or German nation?
"When you are at home, you know you are." Conversely, those who never find themselves at home should not assume that no one else does—just as I should not have taken my own experience as representative. On the other hand, my experience may be normative, or at least more nearly so, just as the experience of my father and my father-in-law, who both live within a few miles of where they were born, is more nearly normative than my own.
Previous Installments in "Church and Nation":
29 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Eunomia » “Just” Loyalty To A Place On The Map
- Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism » Church and Nation: A Credal Nation, Part 3
Entries(RSS)
If America is not a credal nation, then why did you Mid-western Republicans foist it upon us all. Better that you did not invade the South and that America had evolved to more diverse and particular places.
Questions:
Are Canadians "Americans"?
Also, how is it a Black man living in southwest Atlanta is of the same "nation" as a White man living in northwest Montana? Likewise, how is it that a Hispanic Tejano is of the same "nation" as a Chinaman in San Francisco?
Here are four people from different backgrounds, with seemingly nothing in common; yet, to accept them as part of the non-credal "American nation", there must be some common element holding them together.
Personally, I feel there is nothing holding them together, other than the strong arm of government that has, so far, prevented them from declaring their independence from one another. The "American nation" is a construct of Reconstruction, and is entirely enforced by the State; that is, there is no way to separate "American nationalism" from "American statism", the former groing out of the latter.
nbf (@1):
I'm not sure whom you're calling a "Mid-western Republican," but my father's family and my mother's family voted Democratic all along, up until a few changed c. 1980.
As for the invasion of the South, none of my ancestors served in the Civil War. My mother's family had not yet arrived, and my father's family (both the Richerts and the Foremans arrived on the same boat in 1832) were ensconced in a German-speaking enclave in Harrison County, Indiana, minding their own business.
Better that . . . America had evolved to more diverse and particular places.
Amen. And yet, out of such diversity and particularity, true unity--not the unity imposed by sword and law--could have arisen.
"out of such diversity and particularity, true unity–not the unity imposed by sword and law–could have arisen."
And a peaceful and even more prosperous one that it is now. In the absence of external threats and an overreaching federal government we would have had no reason to engage in foreign wars. (I'm sure the State of Texas could have handled another Pancho Villa raid on its own.)
Patrick Hall (@2):
Legitimate questions, but they raise others involving the question of scale. If we insist that an American nation must be of continental scale, then you've put your finger on the problem. As my remarks indicate, I'm not taking the view from 40,000 feet, but from the ground--or, more literally, from the soil.
how is it that a Hispanic Tejano is of the same “nation” as a Chinaman in San Francisco?
If we're speaking of recent immigrants, they can't be. Period. However, with time and close association, they may well become so. Again, compare that situation with nations in Europe, where native populations absorbed Asiatic invaders. (Try to separate out the ethnic strains among Hungarians, for instance.)
To take a situation closer to home, Russell Kirk, certainly no proponent of credal nationhood, regarded himself as of the same nation as the postmaster of Mecosta, a descendant of the "Old Settlers" of Central Michigan, Negroes (escaped or freed slaves) who had come there and often intermarried with native Indians. They were there when Kirk's ancestors arrived, and again, the bonds that were built up by close relationship were not "credal" but organic.
Thank you, Mr Richert.
I was referring to a Tejano whose family has been in Texas since before Independence and Annexation, and a Chinaman who's family has been in San Francisco since circa 1849. Clearly both are "American", which shines a light upon how impossible diverse this "American nation" is; so diverse as to make it impossible to be a "nation" at all.
(As for European absorption of Asiatic invaders, I, look upon anyone from north and east of the Hartz Mountains with suspicion.)
To look at your nation "from the soil" is to look at your locality; the organic ties between neighbors are real, indeed. There certainly are organic ties that cross racial lines in localities - but thousands of localities does not an "American nation" make. There are no organic ties between the Cowee Valley in Western North Carolina and a farming community in Harrison County, Indiana. This is despite the fact both were settled by a large Germanic-dialect speaking population. Geography overpowers demography - but state control has overpowered them both: the ancestors of those German settlers in both communities consider themselves "American" now, not because they have developed an organic relationship, but that the state has gained enough power in their lives to dictate their national identities.
On Loving Our Home and Loving the World or
"The Patriot vs Mankind."
More from Chesterton's "Varied Types"
... refuting one of Tolstoy's "5 Rules of Christianity":
Here is a statement clearly and philosophically laid down which we can only content ourselves with flatly denying: 'The fifth rule of our Lord is that we should take special pains to cultivate the same kind of regard for people of foreign countries, and for those generally who do not belong to us, or even have antipathy to us, which we already entertain towards our own people, and those who are in sympathy with us.'
I should very much like to know where in the whole of the New Testament the author finds this violent, unnatural, and immoral proposition. Christ did not have the same kind of regard for one person as for another. We are specifically told that there were certain persons whom He especially loved. It is most improbable that He thought of other nations as He thought of His own. The sight of His national city moved Him to tears, and the highest compliment he paid was, 'Behold an Israelite indeed.' The author has simply confused two entirely different things. Christ commanded us to have love for all men, but even if we had equal love for all men, to speak of having the same love for all men is merely bewildering nonsense. If we love a man at all, the impression he produces on us must be vitally different to the impression produced by another man whom we love. To speak of having the same kind of regard for both is about as sensible as asking a man whether he prefers chrysanthemums or billiards. Christ did not love humanity; He never said He loved humanity; He loved men. Neither He nor anyone else can love humanity; it is like loving a gigantic centipede. And the reason Tolstoians can even endure to think of an equally distributed affection is that their love of humanity is a logical love, a love into which they are coerced by their own theories, a love which would be an insult to a tom-cat.
On Fuller of Brightling, From Sussex County, England or
(When Clyde Wilson Went to Washington)
very soon there was a day in which
the Big-wigs would have a debate, all empty
and worthless upon Hot Air, or the value
of nothingness; and the man who took most
money there out of the taxes, and his first
cousin who sat opposite and to whom he
had promised the next wad of public wealth
and his brother-in-law and his parasite and
all the rest of the thieves had begun their
pompous folly, when great Fuller arose in
his place, full of the South County of Sussex, and said that
he had not come to the Commons House
to talk any such balderdash, then and there,
but to give them a Eulogy upon the County of
Sussex, from which he had come and which
was the captain ground and head county of
the whole world.
"This Eulogy he very promptly and power-
fully began, using his voice as a healthy
man should, who will drown all opposition
and who can call a dog to heel from half a
mile away. And indeed though a storm rose
round him from all those lesser men, who
had come to Westminster, not for the praise
or honour of their land, but to fill their.
pockets, he very manfully shouted and was
heard above it all, so that the Sergeant-at-
Arms grew sick with fear, and the Clerk at
the Table wished he had never been born.
But the Speaker, whose business it is to keep
the place inane (I do not remember his name,
for such men are not famous after death),
stood up in is gown and called to Fuller
that he was our of order. And since Fuller
would not yield, every man in the House
called out 'Order!" eight or nine hundred
times. But when they were exhausted, the
great Fuller, Fuller of Brightling, cried out
over them all;
" 'Do you think I care for you , you
in significant little man in the wig? Take
that!' And with these words he snapped
his fingers in the face of the bunch of them,
and walked out of the Commons House, and
got into his great coach with its six powerful
horses, and ordering their heads to be set
southwards he at last regained his own land,
where he was received as such a man should
be, with bells ringing and gins firing, little
boys cheering, and all ducks, hens, and
pigs flying form before his approach to the
left and to the right of the road. Ever
since that day it has been held a singular
honour and one surpassing all others to be
a squire of Brightling, but no honour what-
soever to be a member of the Commons
House. He spent all his great fortune upon
the poor of Sussex and of his own parish,
bidding them drink deep and eat hearty as
being habits the best preservative of life,
until at last he also died. There is the
story of Fuller of Brightling, and may we
all deserve as well as he".
From Belloc's "The Four Men "
Mr. Reavis, I am immensely flattered. THE FOUR MEN is one of my favourite books! It wont be me, but I hope someday we will have a Carolinian who will defend his home country in the same way.
Richert: "Reading the comments on the last installment, I have once again been surprised by the strong—and strongly negative—reaction to my suggestion that there could be an American nation that is not credal."
Sadly, propositionalism has become the default position for most Americans. But I don't think it is a deeply held ideology, for, in my daily experiences, as soon as one shines light upon historic alternatives, they almost always are more appealing.
BTW, happy birthday.
#9
Dr. Wilson,
You already have done it, Sir. And those of us who were privileged to watch, even from a distance, will never forget it. Which is why good teachers, like old soldiers, never die; They just battle their way into eternity.
Mr. Reavis @ 7
You are indeed correct. Our Christ commanded us to love our enemies. That did not, however, mean that we were rationalize the concept of "enemy" away, as if that notion were but a product of our fear or prejudices. I personally have real enemies, not some propaganda creation of the neo-cons or others. These real men have done me harm and would, if they could, do me further harm. I am, however, commanded to love them, a command which I am utterly incapable of following and carrying out save for the transforming presence of the Christ Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit.
So it is with people. I must love real, individual people: flawed and fallen: my parents; my wife, my children, my kinsmen, my friends, my fellow Christians with who I worship and fellowship. These are the people to whom He shows His love through me.
The shift to "loving mankind" is really a retreat from the responsibility of real love - the demanding love of duty and obligation to those for whom and to whom one has real responsibility.
Scott you wrote :
"I’m not suggesting that, in whatever form it may exist, the American nation is on par with those other nations, but simply suggesting that the automatic dismissal of any possibility that there could be an American nation strikes me as both conterintuitive and unhistorical."
I tend to agree with you and one of the biggest problems is we don't know what an American is, or might be, given America as she is or has become. A polyglot boarding house ? A tolerant conglomeration of folks -- some who speak english, some who don't , The South side of Chicago or the North of Tupelo, Mississippi ? I know what an Oklahoman is, or a Marine, or a southern writer, and even a "damn yankee", although not everybody who lives North of the old line is one . But what the heck is an American ? Did Robert Frost ever make a suggestion in this regard. I ask in all seriousness because usually poets are the only ones who see these things --- and most of them never know why.
#12
Mr. Peter writes "The shift to “loving mankind” is really a retreat from the responsibility of real love "
Well said.
Mr. Reavis @ 14
There are those on the left, who in "loving mankind" have come to believe that they are acting morally and with charity when their faction can compel the state to use its monopoly of police power to coerce me to give of my wealth and labor for a "noble cause" of their inclination and choosing. They thereby assuage their own self-induced guilt with my money and labor and all too often with my liberty as well.
The closest thing we have to a national creed is the Pledge of Allegiance, penned by de-frocked Unitarian minister Francis Bellamy, who is buried in Rome NY. When I go to high school reunions, I pour a libation offering on his resting place -- after I strain it through my kidneys.
To be a credal nation it would help if we had a national religion, something prohibited by the constitution, but apparently not, however, by the courts. Our august black robes seem to favor any crackpot doctrine that is not even vaguely Christian. Even our national holidays reflect this grim reality.
My solution is to have the congress offer up some legislation declaring some recipe to be our national food. I'm rooting for black-eyed peas, collard greens, gator tails and venison jerky.
Scott, you raise some intriguing thoughts. It would seem that each of us has an area where we feel at home, and that is our true nation or country. For me it is the northern Midwest. I can appreciate the South, but unlike Professors Wilson and Livingston, I am not at home there. I am even less at home in those God forsaken places like Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles. So, would I risk my life to defend my particular nation? Yes. Would I do so to assist Southron Patriots like Livingston and Wilson? Most likely yes. What about my neighbors in Crook County, Illinois? No. I would guard my border here and watch their ill advised notions of "gun control" cause their ultimate and final demise. So, what about Dr. Fleming, who was born in Superior, Wisconsin, but seems most at home in the South, as far away from Swedes as he can get? Would your ideas explain his rather unusual national sentiments? Steve Sailor seems to think that race is the furthest extension of your kinfolk, so would nation be the furthest extension of your feeling of being at home, and perhaps accepted?
"The shift to “loving mankind” is really a retreat from the responsibility of real love - the demanding love of duty and obligation to those for whom and to whom one has real responsibility."
Robert M. Peters, that is a wonderful line.
16Etienne Gervaise
"My solution is to have the congress offer up some legislation declaring some recipe to be our national food. I’m rooting for black-eyed peas, collard greens, gator tails and venison jerky."
Can't say that I have tasted the gator tails, but the rest is at it should be . And since I can trust a man who believes in pouring out libations ,however strained, I 'll go along with the suggestion of gator tails. (I might add two fingers of Tennessee or Kentucky's finest to the list) and some strong coffee to show my support for fair trade. If only our leaders had a touch of your good humor or even an appetite for something other than polls, tolls and doles.
In all honesty, the "American nation" is lost within the Frankfurt School of Marxism and it's multiculturalism. Modern America is the outgrowth of what founded it: Revolution.
The "American nation" died when it became prevalent to set Southern Scot against Southern Black against Midwestern German against Louisiana Cajun.
That is, to reiterate my point: the American nation was destroyed with the Whiggish Reconstruction.
And it can never be reclaimed. To this day, to be an "American" is to submit to the Whiggish vision of America international imperialism; and modern American "multiculturalism" is an assault upon Jacksonian Democracy.
I never thought much in my youth whether America was a nation or not; I just took for granted that I and the people around me were Americans without any further analysis. It is different now, especially for those of us who live in states significantly affected by post-1965 immigration. Many (or most) of the inhabitants are not like us anymore. Many of them do not consider themselves to be Americans and they are correct to think so. The bottom is out of the tub. I doubt we are a credal nation now or a nation of any sort.
I cant help but to agree with Mr van Oosbree. Whatever chance 'America' - whatever that is - had of developing into an authentic, organic nationality has been destroyed. The Lincolnite war of aggression and so-called 'reconstruction' made it impossible for North and South to ever merge into a single nationality during the 19th century. Then the large scale immigration of roughly 1880-1920 and attempts to impose assimilation made it impossible for any true Yankee nationality to develop independent of the South. The kulturkamph disguised as a 'civil rights' crusade made it impossible for an 'American' nationality to develop after the second world war, when it might have been possible for Southerner, Yankee, and European catholic ethnic to merge enough culturally to bring about an 'American' culture and nationality. Post-1965 immigration and cultural Marxism have finished off any chance of any 'American' nationality ever developing in the future.
What cannot be missed is how, in the long run, Southron identity has been reinforced by all this, giving the South a chance to go it's own way, instead of merging with the North as it might have done had there been no trouble between the two regions. Likewise, the historical development not only has been destructive to any sense of real Northern identity or culture, but even destructive to local and regional identities in the North, such as New England. However, if New England, the Midatlantic, and the Midwest could be cut free as independent republics, I think they would, in time, develop or re-establish real cultural and national identities of their own.
America has never been a 'credal' nation, and to think so is delusion, but even so, it is also not really a nation at all, and never has been. It is a political construct, out of which a true culture and nationality might have emerged through shared contacts and history, but failed to do so. Lincoln and his supporters among the cultural imperialists in New England, along with tariff imposing business elites in the Northeast, made what they tried to impose on everyone actually impossible in the end, by tryng to create a false 'America' by force rather than letting a real America grow naturally.
It gets a little tiresome that every serious issue Scott brings up in this series almost immediately turns into a confederate pitty-party. Woe is me, Lincoln destroyed, the what? A fragile union of several nations, is what, and he was a symptom more than a cause. But that isn't the point in this discussion, it seems to me. Yes, Mr. Reavis (#13) Frost made many suggestions about what's an American, and it boils down to "don't join too many gangs." The several posts that contemptuously refer to Chicago, New York, and other big cities always seem to leave out Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, Birmingham, and all the others that are just like the ones that are supposedly evil dens of oppressive credal nationhood. On a slightly smaller scale I'm a little more impressed with Syracuse, NY than Columbia, SC; and smaller yet, with Hillsdale, MI than with Holly Springs, MS. But I would take both Holly Springs AND Hillsdale over any of the metropolises named above. The worst of all is Washington, DC. Forrest McDonald once said to me, "Of course there wasn't an American Revolution--we didn't have a Paris!" This is to an enormous extent a city mouse-country-mouse problem, and Frost and I are on the same side in that one. And what in the world is southern about the south nowadays? It's Republican, for goodness sake!
Mr Willson, dont you think you are over reacting just a little?
It would be interesting to investigate (though it's probably already been done) how credal states cant truly distinguish between nationalism and internationalism. The French revolution tried to create a credal 'nation' on top of a real, organic nation made up of local cultures and identities. Then, it exported it's creed through military conquest and propaganda. Credal nationalism became internationalist.
Likewise with the credal state, the Soviet Union, but in reverse. Communism, an internationalist creed, eventually had to fall back on a warped patriotism to sustain itself in it's base of operations even as it continued to export credal revolution worldwide.
The U.S., an artificial political construct upon which a nationalist creed has been superimposed, seeks to export it's 'Americanist' creed through miitary conquest supposedly designed to spread democracy around the globe. The interesting thing here is that, unlike revolutionary France or the Soviet Union, which exported creeds that were mainly political or economic, the Americanist creed is also partly cultural, as it seeks to 'Americanise' the world by whatever means, thus proving that it's internationalism is firmly based on imperial nationalism.
We dont even have to consider how the credal state, National Socialist Germany, tried to create a multinational European order.
It appears that Calhoun's statement about there being no difference between centralisation at home and empire abroad is all too true.
#25 - Good analysis and well put.
If the French Revolution is responsible for modern nationalism, then is it not appropriate to hope the French people are asking the same important questions that Scott Richert and Chronicles are asking here? If they have asked them, what conclusion have they come to?
Perhaps the people who are asking are marginalized enough that we don't hear about them.