Ancestorialism

[Mango Elephant]

A word I invented (because I'm not sure if the word I want exists). For the purposes of this thread, it means "pride in ancestors". If another word would fit better, let me know and I'll change the OP.

Something is irksome; a gentleman once said that nationalism is deplorable (of course), but the same gentleman said he was proud of being "from Normandy". Not that he was born there, not that he lived there, not even that his parents were born there, but that his ancestors are from Normandy.

WTH

I used to be an "ancestorialist" when I was in elementary school; but it is evident that with maturity comes a knowledge that pride is harmful, and also a knowledge that your ancestors' actions are not your own, and that you didn't live your ancestors' lives. Around the age of 12 I stopped being an "ancestorialist". It is evident that being proud of something you had nothing to do with is harmful, arrogant, and ignorant, and being an "ancestorialist" is exactly being proud of something you had nothing to do with.

Your ancestors come from Russia. Do you speak Russian? Do you know about Russian culture, and fit into that mold? Have you ever lived in Russia? If the answers to these questions are all "no", it is evident that you are NOT Russian and have absolutely no justification in being proud of anything Russian at all, because you're about as Russian as the Mekong River delta.

My ancestor is Abraham Lincoln (not true), but I did not free the slaves, nor was I ever president, nor did I ever know Lincoln personally, so how can I be justifiably proud of Abraham Lincoln or his accomplishments? I'm about as close to Abraham Lincoln as the average Burmese is, regardless of my last name or lineage.

Particularly peeving is when people use the phrase "originally come from" to mean "where do your ancestors come from". Originally I am from where my mother gave birth to me, no matter where my mother came from, or any of her ancestors.

Of course there is a difference between your ancestors and your immediate family.

Questons:

1. Does anything good come from from "ancestorialism"?

2. Are you an "ancestorialist"? Why? And please, if you are one, do not mention where your ancestors come from.

3. How much does "ancestorialism" bother you?

 

[Souron]

I think it's ok to have pride in people who reflect on you. Your children reflect on you because you raise them. The members of a group you belong to who's ethics and code of honor you should behave as you would in the same circumstances. Or more broadly the members of any group you are proud and happy to be a member of are the kind of people you want to reflect on you; you would never happily join a group of scum.

Pride in ancestors makes sense in that way. They are a group who share your cultural values, priorities, and genetics. So you would potentially act just like them in the same situation. This is especially true if the traits they displayed are shared by you and are prominent in other descendants and can be contrasted with other cultures. Unique to ancestors, as opposed to contemporary groups you belong to, is the fact that you have their genetics, and so those aspects, like their physical strength, could reflect on you.

Now there is such a thing as too much pride and misplaced pride, but generally there is nothing inherently illogical about pride in ancestors.


As for me, I'm proud to be Russian, but other than surviving many harsh winters by ancestors didn't really do anything that I'm particularly proud of.

 

[Phrossack]

I have a degree of pride in my heritage, but I agree that pride is generally harmful and priding oneself excessively in one's ancestors is just silly. It's being proud of things you didn't do. Like when people refer to members of their nationality in history as "we', like an American claiming that "'we beat Mexico and took the West." And this, in turn, leads to the nasty, irrational concept of nationalism.

 

[King Kalmah]

I am learning my mother tongue and I do hope to move to the old country one day....

however I did tone down my ancestoralism when I was around High School age for obvious reasons(everyone thinks your foreign for starters)

out of respect for the OP I will not mention my ancestors location of origin,but I will say they escaped communism if that helps...

I think that people who have had ancestors forced from their homelands have a right to "carry the flame" so to speak...more so for people with ancestry from "shunned" nations and might not ever be able to return to them since doing so would fortifier their citizenship in America/EU....

 

[Evie]

Being proud of who you are is natural, and healthy - low self-esteem is what's not healthy. Of course, that pride need to be kept in check as it can have nasty effect, but on the whole, being proud of who you are is good.

I don't see anything wrong with defining (part of) who you are on the basis of who your ancestors were. You have a share of your ancestor's gene. You are where you are, and who you are, because of what they did, and who they were. If the family of Louis Hébert had not, after his death, during the British occupation of Québec (1629-32) chosen to remain in New France (the only family to do so), then I would be a different person, as a part of my family tree would be missing, and another person, with different family tree, therefore different family history, therefore different personal history, would take my place. Or perhaps no one would.

I don't claim their actions for my own. But I do claim a link to these actions, because these actions explain (in however small a part) how I came to be where and who I am. These actions are part of me, because to these days, these actions shape me. What's arrogant and ignorant is suggesting that I would exist at all without these actions.

I do agree that my ancestors being French pointedly do not make me french, nor European. Actually, I take a certain degree of offense at being considered either. I am proud of who my ancestors were, but I am not my ancestors. I do not feel any specific attachment to the country they left behind, and chose not to return to. It's not my homeland.

The attitude espoused here is one of extreme individualism. It is, in my opinion, far more harmful than any ancestorialism, by intimating that no form of social ties matter except those we form ourselves.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Ancestoralism" is pretty much a hold-over from an era in which communities were more homogenous, and people were less culturally and geographically mobile- or, at least, percieved themselves to be less mobile. Asserting the significance of ancestors was a way of stressing the importance of communal integrity, of certain practices and relationships, and so on. It wasn't at heart an appeal to the particular achievement of specific individuals, but to a continuity between now and then. It is about recognising and asserting commonalities between people, rather than attempting to loot their tombs for personal glory, and whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends very much on the specific construction.

In an individualised society like ours, it often takes the form of individualistic appropration of past glories- that's bourgeois man, for ye- but I wouldn't deride as categorically objectionable along as they aren't getting all blut-und-boden about it. Most of the time, it is at worst a silly affection, which falls a good length short of the genuinely
rancid contrivances like nationalism.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>

 

[strijder20]

Being proud of who you are is natural, and healthy

I, for one, am not my ancestors. It'd surprise me if you were.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>

 

[Evie]

I, for one, am not my ancestors. It'd surprise me if you were.

Congratulation on reading the entire post, including the very next paragraph where I discussed that specific point. But I suppose I shouldn't let what I actually said get in the way of you getting a "funny" quip in.

I am not my ancestors. But my ancestors, their decisions, their actions, helped shape who I am, by making it so a person like me was born in the circumstances I was born in, in the family I was born in, in the culture I was born in.

Having the ancestors I do, who took the actions they did, is therefore a part of who I am.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Being proud of who you are is natural, and healthy - low self-esteem is what's not healthy.

I forgot if I addressed this in the OP, but I'll reiterate if I have to. If you're an "ancestorialist", chances are you are one to make yourself feel better because you dislike who you are so you have to associate yourself with people you consider better than yourself. Of course, that's not always the case, but I have trouble imagining the opposite (non-"ancestorialist" being that because of low self-esteem).

Of course, that pride need to be kept in check as it can have nasty effect, but on the whole, being proud of who you are is good.

How so?

I don't see anything wrong with defining (part of) who you are on the basis of who your ancestors were. You have a share of your ancestor's gene.

I share the same genes with Jackie Chan because I am human. Is this basis for me being proud of his achievements? Of course not.

I don't claim their actions for my own. But I do claim a link to these actions, because these actions explain (in however small a part) how I came to be where and who I am.

Your ancestors did what they did with no help from you. Their actions were set in stone before you were born. Being proud of what they did is elitist because you're taking pride in what you were born into. It is comparable to a monarchy, or being born into wealth (and being proud of that wealth).

Another example: It's like me being proud of the sun shining on my head. It's going to shine there anyways.

I do not feel any specific attachment to the country they left behind, and chose not to return to. It's not my homeland.

That is good, at least.

I am learning my mother tongue and I do hope to move to the old country one day....

however I did tone down my ancestoralism when I was around High School age for obvious reasons(everyone thinks your foreign for starters)

This can be considered foolish, if the following are true.

You have never lived in what you call your "old country".

You have never been able to speak your "mother tongue".

If both of these are true, your resolve can still be foolish if you're only moving to the "old country" because it's where you were born, not because of any cultural significance, and the same for your "mother tongue".

Of course, if you were born in America and grew up speaking English, your "old country" is the USA and your "mother tongue" is English.

out of respect for the OP I will not mention my ancestors location of origin,but I will say they escaped communism if that helps...

Help what? This is another thing that bugs me. When "ancestorialists" can't stop talking about wherever they come from. It isn't just an "ancestorialist" thing; even immigrants if they can't shut up about it are annoying, too.

I think that people who have had ancestors forced from their homelands have a right to "carry the flame" so to speak...more so for people with ancestry from "shunned" nations and might not ever be able to return to them since doing so would fortifier their citizenship in America/EU....

This doesn't make any sense. You say "return". These people would not be "returning" because they're not going to anyplace they've ever been! They're going to foreign land.

What good would "carrying the flame" do? All that serves to do is make people feel special and unique for no good reason. It's inflating their ego, which makes them obnoxious if anything.

 

[Evie]

Your ancestors did what they did with no help from you. Their actions were set in stone before you were born. Being proud of what they did is elitist because you're taking pride in what you were born into. It is comparable to a monarchy, or being born into wealth (and being proud of that wealth).

Taking pride in what you were born into is not elitist. Looking down upon others because of what they were born into is elitism. There is a wide gulf between the two, and while many jump from one to the other, conflating them is a failure of logic equivalent to saying "Since there are people who go from having a religion to being fundamentalism, that means having a religion is fundamentalist."

Personally? I take pride in who my ancestors were. Not because I had exceptional ancestors - they were, by and large, commoners, whose deeds get footnotes in history books if even that. The one family that remained in Quebec under English rule from 1629-32. A family that escaped the Acadian deportation and escaped overland to Quebec. A family of farmers who settled down in my father's hometown centuries before I was born. A soldier who fought at Carillon. Nobody exceptional. Just everyday people. But everyday people who, in some circumstances, showed uncommon endurance, uncommon perserverance; who faced uncommon hardships, and who rose to the challenge.

I didn't "win the ancestral pride lottery" - nowhere near even close. Ancestral pride is not about that. Ancestral pride is about finding who your ancestors were, what they did, and finding something in there that you can look up to, aspire to be, and include both the aspiration and the ancestral achievements in your definition of who you are.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

1. Does anything good come from from "ancestorialism"?

As you yourself pointed out, it can't really be rationalized with hard facts. Which leaves us with the psychological. And there I say yes - ancestorialism can be a source of good. Because it can satisfy the urge to belong, to have an identity beyond what one as an individual is, but which is part of something bigger. And to feel to belong can be pretty good thing.

2. Are you an "ancestorialist"? Why? And please, if you are one, do not mention where your ancestors come from.

I am in so far as that I feel connected to German ancestry. Germany is part of my identity and so is German ancestry.

3. How much does "ancestorialism" bother you?

In itself not much. I know that it is strictly rational speaking silly. But to me the rational should only be the servant of the irrational and emotional. So I don't mind if a concept doesn't make sense but gives people comfort. However, I do mind it if people don't even are aware of the silly-part and go on to make serious arguments on those grounds.

The attitude espoused here is one of extreme individualism. It is, in my opinion, far more harmful than any ancestorialism, by intimating that no form of social ties matter except those we form ourselves.

Well said (and not just what I quoted )

 

[Mango Elephant]

Taking pride in what you were born into is not elitist. Looking down upon others because of what they were born into is elitism. There is a wide gulf between the two, and while many jump from one to the other, conflating them is a failure of logic equivalent to saying "Since there are people who go from having a religion to being fundamentalism, that means having a religion is fundamentalist."

I used that word wrong. Sorry.

Nobody exceptional. Just everyday people. But everyday people who, in some circumstances, showed uncommon endurance, uncommon perserverance; who faced uncommon hardships, and who rose to the challenge.

It's not that it's wrong to compliment people, but to compliment people you associate yourself with (who is in your definition of "who you are") seems to toot your own horn a little by making yourself seem better, at least to yourself.

It is not only delusional but sad as well. If you need to feel better, use your own accomplishments to raise your own self-esteem, not the achievements of a long dead person.

Ancestral pride is about finding who your ancestors were, what they did, and finding something in there that you can look up to, aspire to be, and include both the aspiration and the ancestral achievements in your definition of who you are.

You said before that even though your ancestors were exceptional people, they weren't wonderful people. If you need aspiration, why not use Michael Jackson or Armstrong or someone whose accomplishments are amazing?

And I think you said you don't count their achievements as your own; but by using their achievements to define you isn't it almost just the same?

As you yourself pointed out, it can't really be rationalized with hard facts. Which leaves us with the psychological.

Does it not bother you that there's nothing to rationalize your beliefs? Is it not the same as blind devotion to the Christian or Muslim faith? How is this fundamentally different?

And there I say yes - ancestorialism can be a source of good. Because it can satisfy the urge to belong, to have an identity beyond what one as an individual is, but which is part of something bigger. And to feel to belong can be pretty good thing.

A feeling of belonging - yes, that is important, and if an individual is so messed up he can't see himself belonging to any group except his ancestry, then I pity him and pardon his "ancestorialism". However, for those of us that are not messed up like that, there are much better ways to associate yourself with a group, like friends or even (if it has to come to it) country.

But to me the rational should only be the servant of the irrational and emotional.

Surely that's entirely anti-intellectual. Irrational trumps rational? I can't fathom (sorry).

So I don't mind if a concept doesn't make sense but gives people comfort. However, I do mind it if people don't even are aware of the silly-part and go on to make serious arguments on those grounds.

Regardless of the comfort it gives (which can be easily found elsewhere if one searches) it is detrimental to some people. For example, African-Americans whose known ancestors were all sharecroppers and slaves. Or orphans and the adopted. Or people whose ancestors are simply trash. Those who bask in the glory of their great ancestors' accomplishments and talk about it, it makes ancestorialism seem fundamental, and those whose ancestors weren't spectacular are shamed.

Well said (and not just what I quoted )

I agree, individualism is harmful. This thread is not about individualism, nor am I an individualist. Anyone who thinks so has either made assumptions about me or failed to understand what individualism is. I am against making a big deal about a connection that doesn't matter and doesn't help anyone.

 

[de Maistre]

I think that a sense of shared history and destiny, of belonging to something really enduring, can promote solidarity and altruism. Scolding it might be imprudent because it's a relatively benign form of self-affirmation compared to the alternative (authentic nationalism).

Surely that's entirely anti-intellectual. Irrational trumps rational? I can't fathom (sorry).

There exist no 'objective' reasons for preferring science and Western rationalism to other traditions. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine what such reasons might be. Are they reasons that would convince a person, or the members of a culture, no matter what their customs, their beliefs or their social situation? [...] The choice of objectivity as a measure is itself a personal and/or group choice—or else people simply accept it without much thought.

 

[Evie]

You said before that even though your ancestors were exceptional people, they weren't wonderful people. If you need aspiration, why not use Michael Jackson or Armstrong or someone whose accomplishments are amazing?

Because most of us won'T be extraordinary people ever. But most of us will, at some point, be ordinary people given the chance to do the common thing or the uncommon one. KNowing about your ordinary ancestors who made the uncommon choice or who faced the uncommon hardship so you could be there can be much more relevant than knowing about the extraordinary person who went through extraordinary circumstances.

Beyond that, I'm not saying everyone should use their ancestors as a source of inspiration, or hat they should be a sole source of inspiration and aspiration. But they are certainly a possible one, and can be a very good one.

Will reply to the rest at a later point. But suffice to say that I don't feel I need my ancestors for horn-tooting. I've got quite a few uncommon accomplishments of my own for that. Extraodinary, no, but I've done my own bit of uncommon perseverance, and endurance, and rising up to the challenges when they presented themselves. Won't go into details, as I don't like tooting my own horn.

 

[Shaihulud]

Be proud that every ancestors survived long enough to breed. This cannot be said of everyone right now.

 

[Borachio]

Hang on. That doesn't make sense. Surely, the ancestors of everyone living today survived long enough to breed.

Explain to me, carefully, where I'm going wrong.

Or do you mean not everyone living right now will survive long enough to breed? I would think this is fortunate. Otherwise we'll be knee deep in people before long.

 

[Oruc]

Seems like your objection to ancestorialism is really an objection the nation state.
I see nothing wrong with ancestorialism they the same blood after all.

 

[Traitorfish]

Seems like your objection to ancestorialism is really an objection the nation state.

How so? The explicit example he gives is Normandy, which has never been an independent state, nor is it regarded by more than a very small number of people (almost all on the lovably eccentric French far-right) as a "nation". Equally, nationality may have nothing at all to do with ancestry, the most obvious example being the explicitly non-ethnic United States of America.