Thanksgiving
I strenuously disagree that a little mystic nationalism is “a good and healthy thing.” But I heartily agree with what I take Jonah to imply: that patriotism has little emotional substance without mystic nationalism. ~Will Wilkinson
This is a lot of nonsense, which is just what we should expect from Wilkinson on this topic. For Wilkinson, patriotism and nationalism are virtually indistinguishable, so it suits him to accept Goldberg’s mistaken “mystic nationalism” line when he can use it to indict the former. In fact, patriotism has considerable emotional substance that nationalists have exploited for centuries. “Mystic nationalism” in itself is usually the product of a simplistic retelling of history mixed with a hefty dose of self-congratulation. It is the antithesis of patriotism as much as anything can be.
Goldberg is utterly, laughably wrong when he says that Thanksiving is “America’s only nationalist holiday.” There is nothing even remotely nationalist about Thanksgiving. Nationalism elevates the nation and, in its later manifestations, the nation-state to a position of virtual religious sanctity. Few things are capable of greater impiety than nationalism. To the extent that it has any political dimension, Thanksgiving is the negation of the arrogance, presumption and self-absorption that nationalism teaches. The celebration of Thanksgiving is supposed to be a recognition that all things are owed to God’s Providence, and that without Him we can do nothing. Nationalism is an obsession with our own virtues and a boast of our own strength. An act of thanksgiving is an acknowledgment that we are utterly dependent on God for everything.
If nationalists have since tried to hijack the story of the Pilgrims, who were as far removed in spirit from ideas of national greatness and power as possible (as they were both religious dissidents and political exiles), that has nothing to do with Thanksgiving. It is a reminder that nationalists have no respect for history, and that they will distort the past in whatever way they can to advance their cause.
This is probably the usual case where everybody’s got their own definitions of “nationalism”, “patriotism”, “nation”, etc., so everyone’s talking past each other and nobody even understands what the other person is saying. So I’ll continue along that line.
Mr. Larison seems to basically follow the paleo lexicon, where “nationalism” is defined as “the kind of patriotism that I don’t like”. He writes:
Not to get into the old “what is a nation” argument, but Mr. Larison does seem to use “nationalism” to include loyalty to the nation (not necessarily a nation-state), so I’ll assume that usage here. Specifically, he at least includes in his definition national loyalty that he deems excessive. The canonical example of a nation in modern political writing (Hobbes, etc.) is the nation of Israel (sometimes translated as the people Israel) as described in the Old Testament. “Religious sanctity” – you bet! (Nothing “virtual” about that.) “Few things are capable of greater impiety”? Well, that’s a theological question but in the case of the nation of Israel there’s quite a difference of opinion.
On the charge that “nationalism is an obsession with our own virtues and a boast of our own strength”, well, look again at the Old Testament, in this case the prophets. National greatness, i.e. the historic greatness and chosenness of the people Israel, is often used as a call to repentance, a call to return to timeless national principles, in this case the Torah. To call the prophecies “religious” is to miss their explicitly national character. According to one scholar of nationalism, Anthony Smith, this kind of divine chosenness with its accompanying moral demands is quite common among nationalisms.
For what it’s worth, I pretty much agree with what Goldberg says about the Pilgrims. Thanksgiving is a national (nationalist) holiday, as opposed to Independence Day, Memorial Day, and the other holidays he lists, which are state (or commonwealth) holidays. That’s because I don’t define “nationalism” such that it’s necessarily bad or boastful, though it often is of course. (My own confession of faith: I like Walker Connor’s definitions of “nation”, “nationalism”, and “patriotism”.) The Pilgrims were founding a nation, an “offshoot nation” to be precise. If Mr. Larison talks about “mystic nationalism” as a “simplistic retelling of history mixed with a hefty dose of self-congratulation”, well, that sounds like a pretty good description of the Pigrims’ project as well. I see a pretty hefty dose of self-congratulation inside that all Puritan humility.
Owen has a different take on Thanksgiving. I don’t entirely agree, but I wonder what you think.
Goldberg is painfully, laughably wrong when he says “Thanksgiving meanwhile celebrates a pre-constitutional relationship with the Almighty.” But not the Thanksgiving is a nationalist holiday part, although the “only” goes too far. Believe it or not, you and Goldberg aren’t representative of any demographic larger than a small city. (same can be said of Wilkinson and Friedersdorf as well).
Most people experience God on Thanksgiving as a one-minute (at the max) prayer before eating. The overwhelmingly dominant experience is dealing with relatives for the longest time of the year. Then food, then football. (Reverse these three for Texans).
As far as deeper things go, “arrogance, presumption and self-absorption ” and “an obsession with our own virtues and a boast of our own strength” seem as good a list as any. This is the practice, in any case, supposed to doesn’t count for much.
The last paragraph goes off the rails:
1) The Pilgrims have been forgotten, hijacked, forgotten again, demonized, forgotten a third time and commercialized. There’s nothing much real left about them.
2) Their marginalized status in Europe did not prevent them from assuming dominion over the native Indians.
3) What common groups do have respect for history?
RE: Pilgrims can be appropriated for whatever you want. Caroline Baum at Bloomberg:
“Young, able-bodied men resented working for others without compensation. They thought it an ‘injuestice’ to receive the same allotment of food and clothing as those who didn’t pull their weight. What they lacked were appropriate incentives. After the Pilgrims had endured near-starvation for three winters, Bradford decided to experiment when it came time for spring planting in 1623. He allocated a plot of land to each family, that ‘they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves.’ The results were nothing short of miraculous.”
And Jonathan Schwarz has quotes from Thanksgivings of FDR in 1933 (damn, that guy produced great quotes) and Obama this year (rightly called warm, mushy gruel).