In class
we learnt about a woman who had a “clear vision”. Maya Lin, a young student at Yale entered a competition
to create a monument befitting those who lost their lives in the Vietnam War. She,
through her construction, wanted relatives and the general public to accept and
admit the pain; she felt through such acceptance and admittance the process of
healing can begin and not only begin, but flourish.
Lin seeks to question
central questions all humans ask themselves such as how does man deal with death? Losses? And sacrifices?
She through her artwork attempts to combat the difficulty in answering these questions through the medium of art-by providing a fitting monument where all can come
to terms with their loss, “for death in the end is a private and quite matter”.
But what
stuck out the most for me was, Lin, in the face of great anger at her artwork, uncharacteristically
showed such grace, courage, restraint, wisdom and strength. Such qualities
are hard to find in adults not even to talk of 18/19 year olds. Lin, saw her
project on till the very end. She refused to drop her purpose, she refused to pander to the
demands of those who hated her monument. Rather she confidently chose to fight defiantly for the integrity
of her work and in the end her piece was vindicated.
Lin was presented with flowers and told by one of her supporters, a
representative of the veterans of the Vietnam War, that “numbers are numbers
but when we look at the names chiseled in stone, it is a constant reminder of
the high price of freedom”. What greater vindication could Lin have wanted?
But my
question is how many of us can boldly say that in the face of such trials and tribulations
we will keep our nerve? That we will show so such grace, such character, such maturity
until we are vindicated- that is if we are ever vindicated? Because I can’t. I just
know I can’t keep my cool like the way she did. Whether that be when I was 18 or even now. That is why her life will
always remain an inspiration to me. Really, it should be an inspiration to us all.
In class we also focused on a book review on Acemoglu and Robinson book "Why Nations Fail". In it the authors argue that nations thrive when political and economic institutions are developed. They
argue
that nations fail when political and economic power is concentrated in the
hands of the few. And so they conclude that power should not be held in the
hands of the few because such an act does not benefit the nation as a whole.
Besides
this the authors argue that expansive political and economic institutions-that
involve all segments of a community-lead to the desire and incentive to innovate
and thus foster the ability for sustainable growth.
Friedman
(the author of the book review) argues that China
needs to make a transition because although under its current authoritarian government
China continues to grow, it will reach a point where it cannot grow any
longer-a point where sustainable growth is unachievable-and that is because
innovation is non-existent. Unfortunately nobody can challenge China's state company-not even a 20 year old whizkid-and thereby increase competition. Given that nobody can challenge China's state
entities there is provided no incentive to innovate, just fear and a whole
bunch of deterrents.
For
a sustainable economy only comes by providing creativity and through the liquidation of
political and economic power.
And
so I turn my attention to America. America, land of the free and the brave.
America, the beacon of liberty and the torch bearer of freedoms both economic
and political. America, America.
America
is a nation that has benefited from sustainable economic growth because it is
a nation that has strove to provide its citizens with both the political and
economic freedoms it so desires. Although some demand more and vent their anger
via protest such as the Occupy Wall Street: we are the 99% protest of 2011/12, America
in comparison to other nations has dispersed much power, both political (through its
system of democracy) and economic (through its free market/liberal
laissez-faire system, which has led to competition between companies, more
consumer choice and cheaper good quality products). Because of this many American are obligated to their state and feel some kind of an unquestionable allegiance to it.
And
I think this is what makes Americans, American: their freedoms, their liberties, their unquestionable loyalty to their state, and their desire to make their way up the socioeconomic scale-ideals derived from the American
Dream complex. There is also an element of creativity and choice, (two things
many in the world are not opportuned to have) many have for so long fought for
their rights and freedoms (which were denied for one reason or another whether
that be because of race, sexual orientation
or gender) and now that they have it, they have every desire to use it to their
advantage.
In Chapter
7 of Imagined Communities, Anderson focuses on the “Last Wave” of nationalism,
which was the transformation from colonial-states to nation state post World
War I for most European States and Post World II for the colonized states of
Africa and Asia.
Three
factors fostered this change:
a) the increase in physical mobility
movement (the creation of railways, steamships and in the last century, the
creation of motor transport and aviation.)
b) an increase in bureaucracy (“the
colonial state, and, somewhat later, corporate capital, needed armies of
clerks, who to be useful had to be bilingual, capable of mediating
linguistically between metropolitan nation and colonized people.”)
c) the spread of modern style
education (“not only by the colonial state, but also because of the growing
acceptance of the moral importance of modern knowledge even for colonized population”)
“It was a response to the new-style global imperialism made possible by the achievements of industrial capitalism. The paradox of official nationalism was that it brought the idea of ''national histories'' into the consciousness of the colonized.”[1]
Anderson
also dwells on the importance of bilingualism. However bilingualism was not the
only important thing useful in creating a “national consciousness”. The proliferation
of print-capitalism was also essential. Print capitalism and other forms of
media helped the general public grasp a greater meaning of the words nationalism,
national identity and national political community.
America,
no different from other colonized states, became a nation state because of the three
factors explained above [increase in physical mobility, increase in bureaucracy
and a modern style education] and the creation of an industrial capitalism which
cemented its position as a nation and provided it with the autonomy it sought
from the British. It could stand on its two feet because it had a strong
economic backbone. But also print capitalism played its role in facilitating and
circulating the idea of independence and “Americaness” to the general public. And such ideologies were well received.
What makes me British? I guess I feel British because I feel a part of Britain's long and rich history. I guess I feel British because I like to partake in British festivities, British idiosyncrasies and British nuances. I guess I feel British because I get the British sense of humor and I enjoy and have taken on board some British characteristics-our political incorrectness, our love of tea and our love of edgy comedy. But it is a good question. I have never had to question my Britishness and what makes me British. I guess it is because I was born and raised in Britain, and so I have had no reason to question my background but being in America, I see the difference and the similarities. And I constantly question my background and how events/complex situations I have created here would be received at home. I must also point out that I am one of many that benefits from a hybrid of cultures. Given that I am both British and African, my Britishness has informed and complemented my Afrincan-ness and vice-versa. I am very much grounded in African culture, courtesy of my parents-the need to be respectful, show grace and discipline-as much as I have grounded myself in British culture.
I guess my leading question is what makes us who we are? Our background? Our heritage? Our Nation-State? Our Faith? Or is it a mesh of all these things? Food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.