<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Abjuring Loyalty To Ourselves For A Mess Of Pottage</title>
	<link>http://larison.org/2006/11/27/abjuring-loyalty-to-ourselves-for-a-mess-of-pottage/</link>
	<description>n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: MW Frost</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2006/11/27/abjuring-loyalty-to-ourselves-for-a-mess-of-pottage/#comment-5134</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:29:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2006/11/27/abjuring-loyalty-to-ourselves-for-a-mess-of-pottage/#comment-5134</guid>
					<description>As someone who only recently started reading your site, I'm also interested in your answer to jsinger's question. I've found your emphasis on regionalism and local loyalties thought-provoking, but I keep wondering if it leaves any room for a larger notion of American identity - patriotism, as it were. If the only durable and worthwhile loyalties are those "defined by kin, birth, place and the web of traditions handed down to us," then what can Americans actually share at the national scale? What does "loyalty to ourselves" &lt;i&gt;as Americans&lt;/i&gt; entail, if not some loyalty to things beyond your preferred scope of allegiances?

A "proposition nation" doesn't have to be as flimsy as a collection of Patio Men each tending his own consumerist garden. As jsinger suggests, our brand of pottage has, for whatever reason, proven nourishing over time &lt;i&gt;(cue Homer Simpson voice: "mmmm... pottage").&lt;/i&gt; 

By the way, I'm pleased to see your mention of the Synodikon. The first time I heard it, I was surprised by how festive the melody is, considering it's a comprehensive attack on anyone who's ever looked at us sideways over two thousand years. I was humming "anathema, anathema, a-&lt;i&gt;nath&lt;/i&gt;-e-ma" for days.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As someone who only recently started reading your site, I&#8217;m also interested in your answer to jsinger&#8217;s question. I&#8217;ve found your emphasis on regionalism and local loyalties thought-provoking, but I keep wondering if it leaves any room for a larger notion of American identity - patriotism, as it were. If the only durable and worthwhile loyalties are those &#8220;defined by kin, birth, place and the web of traditions handed down to us,&#8221; then what can Americans actually share at the national scale? What does &#8220;loyalty to ourselves&#8221; <i>as Americans</i> entail, if not some loyalty to things beyond your preferred scope of allegiances?</p>
<p>A &#8220;proposition nation&#8221; doesn&#8217;t have to be as flimsy as a collection of Patio Men each tending his own consumerist garden. As jsinger suggests, our brand of pottage has, for whatever reason, proven nourishing over time <i>(cue Homer Simpson voice: &#8220;mmmm&#8230; pottage&#8221;).</i> </p>
<p>By the way, I&#8217;m pleased to see your mention of the Synodikon. The first time I heard it, I was surprised by how festive the melody is, considering it&#8217;s a comprehensive attack on anyone who&#8217;s ever looked at us sideways over two thousand years. I was humming &#8220;anathema, anathema, a-<i>nath</i>-e-ma&#8221; for days.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: jsinger008</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2006/11/27/abjuring-loyalty-to-ourselves-for-a-mess-of-pottage/#comment-5128</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2006/11/27/abjuring-loyalty-to-ourselves-for-a-mess-of-pottage/#comment-5128</guid>
					<description>Daniel,

I was away for Thanksgiving and I'm just now catching up with your wonderful blog.  In this thoughtful post you say:

"Because we are trained to be less atavistic than other peoples, we are tied less to our history, which is from my perspective mostly a blight and a curse; because the conventional national myth today is one of progression away from the old ways, we consequently have much less respect for our forefathers and find ourselves increasingly unable and unwilling to defend the patrimony they have left to us."

First, I'm somewhat confused by your comment that begins "which is from my perspective..."  Does the "which" refer to our actual history or the fact that we aren't tied strongly enough to our history?  Secondly, and my main point, is that I wonder if much of your concern (and perhaps Michael's concern) about our current American identity is just a sophisticated form of sour grapes.  In other words, I get the sense you and Michael DO believe that many Americans have a strong "web of traditions" but you don't like these traditions.  You hint as much when you say our "myth" is "one of progression away from the old ways".  I think that one description of our "myth" sums up much about Americans and America.  For me and my understanding of America, there doesn't need to be scare quotes around myth because I buy into the myth.  I love our colorful history of revolutionaries, entrepreneurs (including some of the nasty ones), Western pioneers, our leaders who dared to shake things up (Lincoln, TR, FDR, etc.), our writers, artists, film-makers and musicians, etc.  It seems to me that taken together many of these folks are all part of the "progression away from the old ways".

So the question for you and all the other paleos out there is do Americans have a strong identity that you just don't like or is our problem that we have "no enduring identity" and will therefore destroy ourselves for a "mess of pottage"?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daniel,</p>
<p>I was away for Thanksgiving and I&#8217;m just now catching up with your wonderful blog.  In this thoughtful post you say:</p>
<p>&#8220;Because we are trained to be less atavistic than other peoples, we are tied less to our history, which is from my perspective mostly a blight and a curse; because the conventional national myth today is one of progression away from the old ways, we consequently have much less respect for our forefathers and find ourselves increasingly unable and unwilling to defend the patrimony they have left to us.&#8221;</p>
<p>First, I&#8217;m somewhat confused by your comment that begins &#8220;which is from my perspective&#8230;&#8221;  Does the &#8220;which&#8221; refer to our actual history or the fact that we aren&#8217;t tied strongly enough to our history?  Secondly, and my main point, is that I wonder if much of your concern (and perhaps Michael&#8217;s concern) about our current American identity is just a sophisticated form of sour grapes.  In other words, I get the sense you and Michael DO believe that many Americans have a strong &#8220;web of traditions&#8221; but you don&#8217;t like these traditions.  You hint as much when you say our &#8220;myth&#8221; is &#8220;one of progression away from the old ways&#8221;.  I think that one description of our &#8220;myth&#8221; sums up much about Americans and America.  For me and my understanding of America, there doesn&#8217;t need to be scare quotes around myth because I buy into the myth.  I love our colorful history of revolutionaries, entrepreneurs (including some of the nasty ones), Western pioneers, our leaders who dared to shake things up (Lincoln, TR, FDR, etc.), our writers, artists, film-makers and musicians, etc.  It seems to me that taken together many of these folks are all part of the &#8220;progression away from the old ways&#8221;.</p>
<p>So the question for you and all the other paleos out there is do Americans have a strong identity that you just don&#8217;t like or is our problem that we have &#8220;no enduring identity&#8221; and will therefore destroy ourselves for a &#8220;mess of pottage&#8221;?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
