How old is a tradition?

[Archangel]

Anglo-American common law is law created by the courts and is followed as precedence, as opposed to statutory law created by legislative bodies. I really doubt that any court would come up with a holding that "anything twice done becomes a tradition."

There is no such thing as Anglo American "common law". Two separate countries sharing an arbitrary law structure, highly unlikely don't you think?

I'm not even sure that America, the U.S., has such a thing as "common law". I have the feeling that part of the uprising in 1766 was to get rid of that.

The UK does, although that is being reduced. It's still strong in Scotland's law. I hope somebody in the UK can update us on that.

You can google it to find the references, I did, successfully.

In any case, this is taking us away from the topic and the point of my original post.

To paraphrase Monty Python: contradiction/challenge (tracking your posts today) is not conversation. The debate paradigm says that you should posit your counter, i.e. provide where in British law tradition is defined. Then I defend my statement, etc. That way we both learn something.

Your call, until then, I'm "standing down" and not getting drawn in further.

[Kid Cossack]

There is no such thing as Anglo American "common law". Two separate countries sharing an arbitrary law structure, highly unlikely don't you think?

I'm not even sure that America, the U.S., has such a thing as "common law". I have the feeling that part of the uprising in 1766 was to get rid of that.

The UK does, although that is being reduced. It's still strong in Scotland's law. I hope somebody in the UK can update us on that.

You can google it to find the references, I did, successfully.

In any case, this is taking us away from the topic and the point of my original post.

To paraphrase Monty Python: contradiction/challenge (tracking your posts today) is not conversation. The debate paradigm says that you should posit your counter, i.e. provide where in British law tradition is defined. Then I defend my statement, etc. That way we both learn something.

Your call, until then, I'm "standing down" and not getting drawn in further.

I could give two flips about how long it takes to create a tradition, but there is, or was, a thing called Anglo-American common law. I don't think it existed in England (where they probably just called it "common law" or even "our common law" or perhaps even "English common law" if they were going to draw a distinction between it and American common law), but it really did exist in America.

For all of the early fractiousness between (independent) America and the United Kingdom, we were/are, to a real degree, your children. To pick only one extraneous example, the mess nights I attended in the USMC probably differed only around the edges from mess nights in the Royal Marines.

While we split off from English common law long enough ago to qualify as a different sub-species, we did still spring from the same roots. Several of my professors at law school used the term "Anglo-American common law."

Now, common law is increasingly being replaced in America, as well, with codes and statutory law but well up into the 20th century American jurisprudence was shaped to a very real degree by the common law that had developed in the United Kingdom/Great Britain.

[Archangel]

I could give two flips about how long it takes to create a tradition, but there is, or was, a thing called Anglo-American common law. I don't think it existed in England (where they probably just called it "common law" or even "our common law" or perhaps even "English common law" if they were going to draw a distinction between it and American common law), but it really did exist in America.

For all of the early fractiousness between (independent) America and the United Kingdom, we were/are, to a real degree, your children. To pick only one extraneous example, the mess nights I attended in the USMC probably differed only around the edges from mess nights in the Royal Marines.

While we split off from English common law long enough ago to qualify as a different sub-species, we did still spring from the same roots. Several of my professors at law school used the term "Anglo-American common law."

Now, common law is increasingly being replaced in America, as well, with codes and statutory law but well up into the 20th century American jurisprudence was shaped to a very real degree by the common law that had developed in the United Kingdom/Great Britain.

Yes, you are right. I have just realized that, in between my post and yours, I made a fundamental error.

The terms have not been defined.

"Common law" has a number of meanings and applications which are too complex for me, really. The US does use a form of "common law" and shares its origins with the British system.

So, I'm still okay with my statements except refer to Kid Cossack for the US model.

[gilmore]

There is no such thing as Anglo American "common law". Two separate countries sharing an arbitrary law structure, highly unlikely don't you think?

I'm not even sure that America, the U.S., has such a thing as "common law". I have the feeling that part of the uprising in 1766 was to get rid of that.

The UK does, although that is being reduced. It's still strong in Scotland's law. I hope somebody in the UK can update us on that.

You can google it to find the references, I did, successfully.


....

I love it when lay people attempt to come up with legal opinions. It's what keeps attorneys in business.

The American colonies and the UK shared a legal tradition until 1776. That traditon is called Anglo-American common law. US law still follows the precedence of opinions written before that date. Very ocassionally they are still cited.

BTW I googled "anything twice done becomes a tradition" and found nothing.

[Mike1]

And this is where the 'legal' discussion ends.

Want to discuss law? Go find a legal forum. This is a kilt forum, 'nuff said?

[MacWage]

FYI: Gilmore was a lawyer before his present religious life.

(Mike, I am NOT entering or trying reengage the debate, just adding info on one of the persons.)

Back to topic:
The notion of "what is tradition" is one that has been hotly debated in times past and present. If you note carefully, in the film "Tunes of Glory," the question of whether the actions and "new" traditions from World War 2 are part of or an aversion from "the tradition of the regiment."

It comes down to when something began and how long it takes before the partakers feel that such is the way it "should be." My family is developing "new traditions" for my kids. These traditions are actually a blending of my family's traditions and my wife's family traditions. For example, Christmas morning in my house growing up Santa left presents in a large pile, each in its own place (mine was on the "the big leather chair") neatly arranged as a display and unwrapped. Anna's family would open wrapped presents from Santa, that were left under the tree. Now Kiwi and Wilson are seeing Santa leaving piles of wrapped presents, each in its own place. When they grow up, it will be part of their tradition, though it is now only a couple years old.

(Also note: the first posts of this thread was from mid-2005. I wonder if the thoughts of the early posters has changed, remained the same, or been reinforced.)

[davedove]

You have a point. Twenty minutes or until the espresso is brewed, whichever comes first.

Oh, that is SO twenty minutes ago.

[Makeitstop]

It's not about time at all. Traditions exist only in the mind, and therefore only in the present.

They are one aspect of our natural tendency to seek order and structure in life. From the time we are born, we see patterns in the world around us, and internalize them into expectations. As these expectations are reinforced, they become entrenched and we begin to view them as the rules rather than the trends.

Some of these fall under the category of traditions. The biggest difference between tradition and other norms is that we are more aware of the traditions. We understand the tradition consciously (as opposed to many unwritten rules which are entirely subconscious until they are broken) and we know that they exist in the context of a culture. There is usually an expectation that traditions are old, but that is more about our way of thinking that it's the way it is and always has been, rather than a need to be old for the sake of being old.

But there is another factor related to time which is significant; The power a tradition holds is based largely on it's acceptance. If others around us follow the tradition, it becomes reinforced. The more it gets reinforced, the more important it seems. Since it takes time for a tradition to spread, older traditions are far more likely to be widespread, and therefore are more likely to become reinforced and hold more power over us.

And of course, when we make up a tradition, it is impossible for us to believe that it is the way it is and always has been. Even though every tradition was made up at some point, we are only bothered by this when it's arbitrary origin is so obvious to us that we cannot deny it. Out of sight, out of mind.

And of course, traditions learned as children are far more important to us. This is partly because the longer we hold on to a tradition, the more entrenched it becomes, and partly because as children we absorb norms more quickly and deeply than later in life.

The point is, it is only a tradition because we believe it is a tradition. If I make up a tradition and tell it to a friend, not mentioning that it didn't exist a moment ago, then in his mind, it is a tradition. And should we spread this tradition, it's hold over the people will grow. If we get millions of people believing this tradition, it will be as significant as any other, regardless of whether it has been around for a week, or 1000 years.

[Coinneach]

So maybe a tradition is just a conscious habit.

[Ayin McFye]

(Also note: the first posts of this thread was from mid-2005. I wonder if the thoughts of the early posters has changed, remained the same, or been reinforced.)

I agree. I would like to see some of the original members who posted to this forum 2 years ago reply to see if they still hold their views to be the same.

I have a side note i'd like to ask regarding this topic.

If one person starts a tradition and does it for 10 years and does it on a daily basis, and then someone sees them doing that "tradition" and does it for 5 years, does the person doing it for only 5 years have any less right to that tradition?