March 12, 2004
ROLL, COLUMBIA, ROLL:
What Makes An American: "To become an American is a process which resembles a conversion. It is not so much a new country that one adopts as a new creed" (Raoul de Roussy de Sales, March 1939, The Atlantic Monthly)
he truth is that the growth of the American sense of nationality has followed a course inverse to that of older countries. The European first becomes conscious of himself because he lives in a definite place where his forefathers lived before him, because he speaks a language which has always been spoken there, and because he feels a general sense of physical fixity in his surroundings. The political consequences of being a Frenchman, an Englishman, or an Italian are, in a sense, secondary manifestations of his nationality. They are superimposed.But the Americans began to be politically conscious of being a nation before they felt that the land under their feet was really their homeland. It was only after they had broken off their allegiance to the British that they started—very slowly—to realize that America was the particular section of the planet to which they belonged, where their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren would be born and would die. They began to grow roots after they were already in full bloom as an organized nation.
This—among others—is one of the important reasons why the Declaration of Independence is a certificate of birth not only for the whole American nation but for each American, even today; and why also the Constitution has always had a sacred character, for which there is no counterpart in any other country. It may be a wise political document, but it is even more important as the most genuine and most truly mystical source from which every American derives the consciousness of being himself. If the improbable choice were given to Americans by some great jokester, "Would you prefer to go on living in your country and be deprived of your Constitution and everything that it stands for, or would you prefer to take it with you to some new wilderness?" I am not quite sure what the results of the referendum would be.
Most of the native Americans with three or four generations behind them forget that those who have come after them undergo a process of adaptation. It does not matter whether those who have crossed the seas are conscious of what takes place within themselves when they decide to be naturalized. It does not matter, either, whether they become Americans merely because they are tempted by better opportunities or because they were thrown out of their native land by persecution of one kind or another. The important fact is this: all those who are coming today and those who will come tomorrow are required first of all to accept a certain outlook on life and certain moral and political principles which will make them Americans. These things must take place in their minds and in their souls. Whether they adapt themselves to the landscape, to the architecture of the towns, to the food and drinks of their new country, is secondary. Whether they can speak its language is also not very important. The main thing is that they should be won over to Americanism, which is a set of moral and political doctrines.
Curiously enough, in a country where material changes are extraordinarily rapid, this moral and political frame has the stability of a dogma. For instance, America is the only country in the world which pretends to listen to the teaching of its founders as if they were still alive. Political battles of today are fought with arguments based on the speeches or writings of men dead over a century ago. Most Americans behave, in fact, as if men like Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and many others could be called up on the phone for advice. Their wisdom is considered as eternal as that of the Biblical prophets. To show how distinctively American this conception is, one has only to imagine what would happen if Mr. Chamberlain justified his present policy by quoting William Pitt, or if M. Daladier evoked the authority of Danton as a guide.
In fact, to become an American is a process which resembles a conversion. It is not so much a new country that one adopts as a new creed. And in all Americans can be discerned some of the traits of those who have, at one time or another, abandoned an ancient faith for a new one.
This explains, perhaps, the importance of the factor mentioned at the beginning of this article: that, in the make-up of an American, his defiance of the rest of the world, and particularly Europe, is fundamental and unavoidable. [...]
If the interpretation I have tried to give of what makes an American is not wholly wrong, it explains why the American is in a peculiar position in relation to the rest of the world. His conception of nationality makes him, in a way, better equipped to resist the degrading forces which are now at work in the world than the citizen of any other country. On the other hand, if these forces (which I call degrading because such is my belief) triumph, they will cease to be considered evil. Quite the contrary. They will be glorified as representing the true course of civilization for the twentieth century, and the American will find himself in the curious position of being isolated, not because he wants to be, but because he will be the last representative of a backward type of humanity that will appear completely out of step with this adventurous Europe that may be emerging under our eyes now. America, which we see clinging so passionately to the political and moral concepts of the nineteenth and even of the eighteenth century, will find itself in an even stronger opposition to Europe than it is now.
What will the American do then? Will he carry on the fight single-handed? Or will he try to cultivate within his own soul a sense of nationality less abstract and less doctrinary, as a compensation for the defeat of his ideals?
For the moment the general tendency is to rely on the possibility of maintaining an unchanged course. In fact, there is no question about that, but it is interesting to note that the "Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean" attitude is not as self-assured as it used to be. Doubt is creeping in very fast, and, as always happens when faith is shaken, the natural instinct is to shout even louder that the reasons to doubt are nonexistent. The affirmation that America has been set apart from the rest of the world, that it can and will fulfill its mission, and that it has been chosen, is proclaimed with such eloquence and energy that one has sometimes the impression that it was not God who made the Atlantic Ocean, but the genius of the American people.
In the Progressive Party's platform published last April, for instance, one finds the following statement:
We believe that this hemisphere—all of it—was set aside by our Creator for the ultimate destiny of man. Here a vast continent was kept virgin for centuries. Here it was ordained that man should work out the final act in the greatest drama of life. From the Arctic to Cape Horn, let no foreign power trespass. Our hemisphere was divinely destined to evolve peace, security, and plenty. It shall remain inviolate for that sacred purpose.
This is a lofty conception, and the immigrant, the pioneer, the refugee, or the oppressed, whether he arrived here a century ago or last week, cannot help being heartened by such words. The question is, however, how much longer can the American maintain the posture of a man who stands on tiptoe on the ground because he feels it is his destiny to keep his head above the clouds?
For so long as we have refused to change our sacred course, the stream of History has always converged back along our path. It would be a terrible tragedy if we too were start just going with the degraded European/secular flow. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 12, 2004 7:11 PM
"Would you prefer to go on living in your country and be deprived of your Constitution and everything that it stands for, or would you prefer to take it with you to some new wilderness?"
I'll bet 99-1 we would take the Costitution.
Posted by: sb at March 12, 2004 7:25 PMWell, one out of three or four would, anyhow.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 13, 2004 12:10 AMAlthough I tend to think both the American right and Canadian left exaggerate the differences between the two countries, I must say that on this issue Americans truly do strike me as being unique. Every Canadian student is forced to spend far too many tedious hours studing our founding history and our Fathers of Confederation, and I have never met one that retains anything or ever refers to them again, for the excellent reason that they were cobbling together a pragmatic, mundane compromise rather than building a nation from first principles. I've nothing against pragmatic, mundane compromises, but they don't nourish the soul for long or guide you when danger looms.
I may be over-influenced by this site, but I often imagine many Americans walking through life with well-thumbed copies of the Declaration or Federalist papers in their back pockets, to which they refer frequently as they pay their bills, fall in love, etc. Americans have a worldwide reputation for being intellectually casual and for ignoring history, but (as with so much in the modern world) the opposite is the case.
Quite apart from the content of American traditions, the mere fact that your history looms so large keeps the States grounded in reality while the rest of the West is so cocooned in abstract nonsense it can't remember which side of the sky hosts the morning sun. One can't read Lincoln, Jefferson, et. al. without being struck by their uncompromising grounding in the real lives of real people, but the same can be said of many of their British and even continental contemporaries. But when Europe threw its history away in 1919 and signed on to Darwin-Freud-Marx-ultramontane abstracts, it jumped into an enchanted kingdom it can't escape from.
The result is today we see Americans facing warlike truth with sad, almost regretful, courage while the rest cling to peaceful fantasies, so no wonder the resentment is so great. Do you appreciate being rudely awoken from blissful dreams?
Posted by: Peter B at March 13, 2004 6:40 AMI may be over-influenced by this site . . ..
Well, sure, but who among us can cast that stone?
Posted by: David Cohen at March 13, 2004 12:02 PM