Two American Narratives

[donquixote99]

The USA's uniqueness is that it was targeted and settled by treasure hunters, just when mercantilist capitalists were ready, ideologically and politically, for such a project. The prototypical US founding wasn't Plymouth, it was Jamestown. The exceptional thing about America was simply the huge amounts of land available, for free to those in the right political position. The ultimate example is William Penn, who got 45,000 square miles, still the most land any non-sovereign has ever owned, essentially for free (the king who gave it to him had doubtful title, but that was managed). America was the place where you could get 'undeveloped' land free or super cheap. With hard work, luck, initiative, just about anyone might get rich. Or they might not, but failure typically meant an early and obscure death, and so was virtually invisible. Vast material advancement was and is the American Dream.

This is the first of two great themes in the American narrative: the unimaginable quantities of land, and the saga of who got it, and how well did they do with it. Those who did well, or even OK, had a tremendous feeling of individual accomplishment, and thus was born the American conviction that it's the individual, not the community, that counts. Such individualists had incredible resentment then toward an aristocratic class led by an overseas monarch who decided, after about 150 years, that it was time these unruly Americans submitted to rule by their betters. The idea here became 'No one has any betters!' It's a powerful, radical idea that was advanced with important reservations by the American upper-class revolutionaries, who mainly meant "You Englishmen are not MY betters!" The implicit irony of their concurrent conviction that they themselves were particularly better, and that certain others could indeed be oppressed, was, by and large, sharply denied.

The American narrative then is first the story of individualism born of the struggle of individuals to gain and profit from ownership of manifestly vast, inexhaustible resources. This individualism always conflicts with the idea of the public, communal good. And it is the story of the consequential rise of an ideology of individual rights and equality, which is the second great theme of the American narrative. America became defined as 'the land of the free.' This in turn consequently creates continuous revolutionary struggles over the extension of such rights to the oppressed. The two narratives, in short, are 'the individual versus the community,' and 'the already free versus those still oppressed and demanding freedom.' And because the main power of the oppressed is the solidarity of the community, they are communitarian, not individualistic (except when corrupted, which happens frequently enough of course.)

The two great currents are thus united in a yin/yang relationship. The Yin are the individualists, seeking personal material advancement, selfish and opposed to any idea of duty to the community, to any infringement on their individual wealth and power. The Yang are communitarians, seeking group well-being and freedom from exploitation by the selfish individualists, and feeling that individuals have a strong duty to share. It is the individualists, in their zeal to be free of the burdens of duty, who create a doctrine of preeminent individual rights. This doctrine becomes an inspiration and a weapon for those communities the individualists find it profitable to oppress. It need hardly be added that the individualists, deny it as they may, are of course dependent on a community that cooperates economically and socially, and protects their rights and property. The individualists cannot exist without community, and the most extreme libertarian fantasies assume it despite themselves. The Yin and Yang are thus united in their circle, each defining the other, and neither even existing except in relation to the other.

Another big dynamic of America was the frontier, which was always extracting from the settled lands high-Yin people who disliked community, and instead sought their fortunes where there was no community in existence. To this day the more sparsely-settled American west is dominated by the ideology of 'rugged individualism.'

While my personal inclinations are more Yang, I appreciate the drive of the Yins, and see it as a great engine of accomplishment and advancement in all spheres. Fortunate is the society that gives scope and structure in which both tendencies can flourish in harmony.

[UncleAng]

That's quite an epistle DQ. The yin/yang factor has always existed since mankind appeared on this earth. But the yins are the ones that build the monuments which we climb all over when we're on vacation and then over a beer we chat wondering 'how did they do it'. The yangs of the world are the ones that enabled us to go on vacation in the first place.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by UncleAng

That's quite an epistle DQ. The yin/yang factor has always existed since mankind appeared on this earth. But the yins are the ones that build the monuments which we climb all over when we're on vacation and then over a beer we chat wondering 'how did they do it'. The yangs of the world are the ones that enabled us to go on vacation in the first place.

Good observation, I agree.

[Zeke]

Brilliant stuff, Don.

I'm cribbing it elsewhere with attribution.

[donquixote99]

Thanks, Zeke.

[Reason10]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The USA's uniqueness is that it was targeted and settled by treasure hunters, just when mercantilist capitalists were ready, ideologically and politically, for such a project. The prototypical US founding wasn't Plymouth, it was Jamestown. The exceptional thing about America was simply the huge amounts of land available, for free to those in the right political position. The ultimate example is William Penn, who got 45,000 square miles, still the most land any non-sovereign has ever owned, essentially for free (the king who gave it to him had doubtful title, but that was managed). America was the place where you could get 'undeveloped' land free or super cheap. With hard work, luck, initiative, just about anyone might get rich. Or they might not, but failure typically meant an early and obscure death, and so was virtually invisible. Vast material advancement was and is the American Dream.

This is the first of two great themes in the American narrative: the unimaginable quantities of land, and the saga of who got it, and how well did they do with it. Those who did well, or even OK, had a tremendous feeling of individual accomplishment, and thus was born the American conviction that it's the individual, not the community, that counts. Such individualists had incredible resentment then toward an aristocratic class led by an overseas monarch who decided, after about 150 years, that it was time these unruly Americans submitted to rule by their betters. The idea here became 'No one has any betters!' It's a powerful, radical idea that was advanced with important reservations by the American upper-class revolutionaries, who mainly meant "You Englishmen are not MY betters!" The implicit irony of their concurrent conviction that they themselves were particularly better, and that certain others could indeed be oppressed, was, by and large, sharply denied.

The American narrative then is first the story of individualism born of the struggle of individuals to gain and profit from ownership of manifestly vast, inexhaustible resources. This individualism always conflicts with the idea of the public, communal good. And it is the story of the consequential rise of an ideology of individual rights and equality, which is the second great theme of the American narrative. America became defined as 'the land of the free.' This in turn consequently creates continuous revolutionary struggles over the extension of such rights to the oppressed. The two narratives, in short, are 'the individual versus the community,' and 'the already free versus those still oppressed and demanding freedom.' And because the main power of the oppressed is the solidarity of the community, they are communitarian, not individualistic (except when corrupted, which happens frequently enough of course.)

The two great currents are thus united in a yin/yang relationship. The Yin are the individualists, seeking personal material advancement, selfish and opposed to any idea of duty to the community, to any infringement on their individual wealth and power. The Yang are communitarians, seeking group well-being and freedom from exploitation by the selfish individualists, and feeling that individuals have a strong duty to share. It is the individualists, in their zeal to be free of the burdens of duty, who create a doctrine of preeminent individual rights. This doctrine becomes an inspiration and a weapon for those communities the individualists find it profitable to oppress. It need hardly be added that the individualists, deny it as they may, are of course dependent on a community that cooperates economically and socially, and protects their rights and property. The individualists cannot exist without community, and the most extreme libertarian fantasies assume it despite themselves. The Yin and Yang are thus united in their circle, each defining the other, and neither even existing except in relation to the other.

Another big dynamic of America was the frontier, which was always extracting from the settled lands high-Yin people who disliked community, and instead sought their fortunes where there was no community in existence. To this day the more sparsely-settled American west is dominated by the ideology of 'rugged individualism.'

While my personal inclinations are more Yang, I appreciate the drive of the Yins, and see it as a great engine of accomplishment and advancement in all spheres. Fortunate is the society that gives scope and structure in which both tendencies can flourish in harmony.

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that those who want individual freedom and who want to acquire things (Yins) are a separate commodity from the alleged Yangs who claim to be communitarians. There is no more selfish an individual than a communitarian who exists to redistribute wealth from those who produce to those who don't. And there certainly is no more selfish person than a politicians who wishes political power based on the creation of a community, rather than individual effort.

It's also dishonest to suggest communitarians are not selfish at all and do not desire more accumulation of wealth. Political power is the ultimate wealth. Just look at Pelosi.

The thing that Conservatives believe is that WE ARE ALL THE SAME. We are not tribes of people who should treat each other differently. We bleed the same blood. We require food, shelter. We don't believe that there are inferior humans, at least not in terms of biology. We do have this nasty habit of judging people based on their actions and views.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Reason10

We do have this nasty habit of judging people based on their actions and views.

Everyone except yourselves.

[Reason10]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Everyone except yourselves.

We are our own biggest critics.

While liberal Democrats circle the wagons, Conservative Republicans circle the firing squad. We can't even agree on lunch.

'Tis the curse of being the only independent thinkers in the bunch. Your side apparently has been spared that curse.