For he might have been a Roosian,
A French, or Turk, or Proosian,
Or perhaps Itali-an!
|
All.
|
Or perhaps Itali-an!
|
Boatswain.
|
But in spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman!
He remains an Englishman!
|
—
Gilbert and Sullivan, H.M.S. Pinafore
My
headnote from W. S. Gilbert's 1878 Pinafore
lyrics includes a joke that some 20th-century Americans missed, and
some 21st-century Americans might still miss.
About
1599, in his Henry V, Shakespeare
shows a British army in France with captains who are Welsh, Irish, Scottish,
and English and who talk of those designations as their nations. Things hadn't
changed much that way by the Victorian era in the 19th century, nor
with the mother of a friend of mine who corrected people who thought she was
English by telling them she was Welsh. Nor during the run-up to Elizabeth II's Diamond
Jubilee, when I saw a Union Jack only at a touristy place in the
somewhat-United Kingdom and otherwise saw only the flags of the nations, especially, where
I was, the English cross of St. George and the Scots cross of St. Andrew.
The
United Kingdom has one monarch, one flag of union, and four nations. And that's
just one country we Americans refer to loosely as "England."
"Nation"
in the old sense was your tribe writ large: your ethnos, your people, and it
wasn't something you chose, and it wasn't something you could change. You were
born a Russian, Turk, French, or Prussian — and a Prussian damn well wasn't a Bavarian
— and that was who you were.
In
that sense, Japan is a nation, and France is, sort of: France was pieced
together from different independent medieval fiefs, and some Basques of France
are getting restless, which gets one to the issue of Spain and the Basques and Catalans. And digging
down a bit one would get to Québécois in Canada and, a bit
further, such sensitive issues as Armenians in Turkey in the early 20th
century and the ethnic issues behind "ethnic cleansing" in the late
20th century.
In
this sense of nation as "tribe writ large," the phrase "a nation
of immigrants" makes sense only if you do a very fine-grain analysis of
the old tribes and note that many of the big ones in historical times really
weren't all that "blood and soil" pure-bred but more like
confederations and semi-open communities.
The
First Peoples in the Western Hemisphere are also called "the Indian
nations," and that's a plural. When the White folk arrived, they came from
different cultures in Europe, and, indeed, even just what we call "the
English" — "Albion's
Seed" — came in different groups even more local than the current four
UK nations and contributed to what Colin Woodard identifies as the "Eleven
Rival Regional Cultures of North America" (American
Nations, 2011).
How
we count those (North) American "nations" or see our histories —
plural — and rivalries isn't crucial; the crucial point is that the USA has not
been, is not now, and for a long time won't be, if ever, "one Nation,
under God" (or atheist or pagan).
And
unless we exclude a whole lot of people, we're not "a White,
Christian" — as in "I used to be Catholic, but now I'm
Christian" — nation. (That Christian vs. Catholic line is a quotation from
a student of mine: a nice guy I had a talk with on, let's say, religious
nomenclature.)
What
we are, I think and hope, is what's identified in the old story of Benjamin
Franklin's exiting the final session of the Constitutional Convention to be
confronted by a woman who asked, in my paraphrase, «Well, Dr. Franklin, what
kind of government have you given us […]?", answered with, «A republic,
madam, if you can keep it.»
We
are, I think and hope, a republic, with a "mixt constitution"
combining a rather monarchical President with an aristocratic Senate and a
relatively democratic House of Representatives — as the Founders mostly
intended, combined with a robust judiciary to check the other branches, and a
professional bureaucracy to get the whole ungainly apparatus to work for what
has become a large country.
And
we have citizens: people loyal to the Constitution (as much as they understand
it) and to ideals in what has been called a civic religion, celebrated most
especially on the Fourth of July, the anniversary of the signing of our
Declaration of Independence, one basis of American ideals.
The
Republic, of course, is kind of abstract and intellectual, but, then, you can't
touch or smell or literarily feel a nation. Corporations are "fictive persons,"
but they exist, and money is just paper — or electrons in motion nowadays —
backed up by convention and imagination and faith. The Nation also is a matter
of symbols, rituals, origin myths, and stories, and in a better world than this
one would be a safe and easy way to get emotional commitment to the State.
In
the world we actually have, the Nation gets emotional attachment much too easily,
leading far too often to almost idolatrous attachment to symbols and a warm and
fuzzy feeling of absorption into the tribe.
Screw
that. Or screw the extremes of "that": the xenophobic chauvinism
summed up in Mel Brooks's joke about the first national anthem: "Let 'em
all go to hell, / Except Cave Seventy-six!" Screw unthinking infatuation
with our little tribes, with us.
What
we need instead is a mature love for the homeland we were born into or have
adopted, a firm patriotism for the American Republic as an ideal and a hope for
human dignity. The Republic as a great experiment in self-rule, what Abraham
Lincoln called "the last
best hope of earth" if we can maintain our Union and expand freedom.
We can strive for a nation embodied in a Republic worthy of our love and even
that "last
full measure of devotion" for the ideal celebrated by Lincoln: the
poet of the Republic as "government of the people, by the people, and for
the people" — which God forbid should ever be replaced by the low appeal
of just another arrogant, self-absorbed band of nationalists deluded by the
myths of blood, soil, and ethnic purity.
No comments:
Post a Comment