John Muller Blog 3 Communicating in a Nation

In “Imagining Nations,” Anderson argues that print language laid the foundation for national consciousness. He states that print language created unified fields of exchange and communication as well as languages of power of a kind different from the older administrative vernaculars. I think this argument is emphasized by the Nazi propaganda video we watched in class last week. Anderson’s points are exemplified when we look at Nazi propaganda from the 30s. Whether it be video or written this form of media provides a form of mass communication that can form what Anderson calls administrative centralization.

Print changed the way people were able to communicate and the extent to which messages could be spread. Whether uniting a nation for good or evil, as seen with the Nazi propaganda, the ability to spread a message to the masses became possible. I would argue that we are currently in a similar communication boom with internet and videos going viral. Right now anybody is able to upload a video and have the message spread to millions instantly. This could similarly result in creating stronger nations or more divided ones depending on what message is spread. Recently North Korea released a video on youtube that went viral. In the video, a city that resembles New York is seen being burnt to the ground. This hate was spread to millions and the effects are yet to be seen whether it will divide or unite.

As Anderson pointed out new print technology opened up doors of communication impossible before its inception. Print was able to spread good such as the bible but also allowed for mass production of propaganda material used to spread communism and socialism. We are similarly going through a new technology boom that allows for videos and messages to go viral and reach millions. The question that remains to be seen is how will this new form of communication help to divide and unite us.

Jonno Marlton #4: Too American?

Anderson categorizes the Creole Pioneers of the Americas as being distinctly different from their homeland.  In describing the Creole Pioneer, Anderson explains that “the accident of birth in the Americas consigned him to subordination,” despite the unifying cultural factors that still existed.  I have always thought of my American-ness in relation to my Australian-ness.  I am more American than I am Australian.  I have lived here longer, I was born an American citizen (I wasn’t naturalized in Australia until I was three years old,) and I speak like an American.  The family I know best is American.  Or rather, they are Virginian. 

            Thinking back to Anderson’s description of the first American settlers to be born away from their homeland, I know for certain that my family can relate.  I feel a very strong tie Colonial Virginia because my Virginian family to this day prides itself on our colonial ancestors.  Thomas Nelson, whose son was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was given the land that my grandmother and her brother still own and inhabit in 1717 by the English Crown.  The truth of the matter as I can gather is that they were just handing out land back then and getting 3,000 acres in Virginia that soon after it was discovered was exciting, but not as impressive as it sounds now.  We also have a governor in our family.  John Page, the man who led Virginia after the Capital moved from Williamsburg to Virginia.  In fact the original land for the Bruton Parish Church in Colonial Williamsburg was donated by a Page ancestor of mine.  His grave is there today. 

            England for us, in a way, is home with a capital “H.”  Virginia is a unique place because of its language, which to this day is still heavily influenced by the speech patterns of the four distinct colonizing forces.  My family has made an effort to track itself back to its origins to make a stronger claim to Virginia.  It’s funny how an understanding of our former English-ness makes us more Virginian, which makes us more American.  Anderson talks about the importance of Newspapers by offering the example of Benjamin Franklin.  Print media is important to my family’s “legacy,” but in a very different way than it is to those who still claim Franklin.

            Turning quickly to The Colored Museum, we can see that George C. Wolfe highlighted the struggle of African Americans by portraying the mid-Atlantic slave trade in an occasionally humorous manner that reasserts just how painful the slave trade was and is to our culture.  The line, “from your pain will come a culture so complex” speaks to me as being the point of the “Celebrity Ship” skit.  Back to my ancestors.  Thomas Nelson Page, the “famous” author in my family wrote novels about Virginia.  I have not yet read anything from the man who many members of my family say make us more Virginian, but I do know what he wrote about.  He wrote books after the Civil War (still in the 1800s) glorifying pre-Civil War Virginia. 

            Look, I have been indoctrinated to think of myself as about as American as you can get.  And I really do feel it…almost (my Aussie-ness gets in the way) but I know that some of my family feels it.  We got here almost “first” and we have had the same land for almost three hundred years.  We owned slaves, we fought in the civil war, we suffered from immense poverty that came from the agrarian collapse at the beginning of the 20^th Century (if not before.)  We were here “first” and we suffered.  So we are American.  But we weren’t here first, and we caused a lot of suffering.  Maybe that’s what makes us American.

***When I say family, I mean my extended Virginia family.  The views I have loosely expressed in this essay are not those every family member and I am generalizing to help you gain access to my mentality.

***In identifying my “American-ness,” I realize that I have come from the “whiteness” that everybody uses as the measuring stick for access to society.  Professor Aguas made the point that we all align in relation to this concept.  Orpheus McAdoo, the man whom Professor Thelwell discussed on Thursday, is a great example of someone who was using his understanding of “whiteness” to gain access to the system.  But, through his brand of uplift politics, he was able (I hope) to bring whiteness and otherness closer together.  

Yue (Ivy) Blog #3: "What language do you speak?"

I did not speak English seven years ago, when I first arrived in the US.  When I first came here, I remember how I blushed, turning tomato-red at the mere thought of having to greet someone in the hallway. Often I would defer to a distant head bob. I had to take one-year of ESL (English as Second Language) in high school. Prior to that, I spent most of my life in Shanghai, China. My native tone is Shanghainese, the dialect of Shanghai. However, Shanghainese is banned at schools in Shanghai by the government. Only the official Chinese language, Mandarin Chinese (or Putonghua), is allowed. After a brief Internet search, I came across this interesting information. During the Cultural Revolution in China, the government decided to simplify traditional characters and make the Beijing dialog the only official language and named it Putonghua (“common language”). So ever since I entered elementary school, I was taught to feel ashamed if I spoke Shanghainese, even if by accident. Everything at school is taught in Putonghua, which made it much harder on elder teachers, who spoke only Shanghainese when they were young, and learned Mandarin later. When I was little, there were a few TV programs in Shanghainese on TV; nevertheless, nowadays, there are almost none. Shanghainese is fading away; many young people nowadays do not know how to speak Shanghainese in Shanghai. Shanghai as a harbor city, exported a lot of culture, as well as, human capital, all around the world in the past 100 hundred years. Many of the second/third generation immigrants only speak Shanghainese as their main dialect. I’ve even heard people speaking Shanghainese at the Prime Outlets, here in Williamsburg. But in China, Shanghainese will surely go extinct and with it, a vast array of cultural and regional diversity that once existed.  I want to end with a quote that I like from Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities: “If every language is acquirable, its acquisition requires a real portion of a person’s life: each new conquest is measured against shortening days. What limits one’s access to other languages is not their imperviousness but one’s own mortality. Hence a certain privacy to all languages.” 

Brittany Liu's Blog #3 Communication, Language, Expression

I believe a healthy nation is formed in part by expression or more or less communication.  It is the humanistic way of connecting, relating, and sharing.  Language, in its many forms, dialects and styles, is a leading component of communication and it definitely is a unifying agent.  English is my first language, but I am not proud to say that it is my only language.  I think that knowing another language is so important because it connects you with people from a background that is different than yours.  I can’t say that it gives me a feeling of nationalism because I know that there are other countries that speak English too.  Language seems to bring up contradictory ideas regarding unification.  On one hand it connects people through interactions and relationships, but on the other hand it sets barriers.  Varying dialects and accents based on origins naturally form their own communities.  A person from Louisiana will speak much differently than a person from Boston and people tend to gravitate towards their similar background.  This also applies to levels of education and socioeconomic classes, which are always dividing factors.  However, it is still English that we are all generally speaking.  Language seems to divide and unite simultaneously.

Benedict Anderson believes that "nothing served to 'assemble' related vernaculars more than capitalism" (44).  The market of printed books established a unifying language.  Anderson's previous idea of "simultaneous" comes into play here.  As one is reading there is the notion that someone else has read that print or is reading it at the same time.  It becomes a unifying mindset to think that another is consuming the same knowledge as you because they speak the language of the nation.  However, again, this can be a dividing factor because not everyone is able to obtain these books.  The power of money drives the reproduction of printed books, but it also prohibits those who lack money.  Perhaps it was a factor in dividing social classes.  Although, now we have so many more forms of communication including text messages, phone calls, and the Internet.  A broad spectrum of people have more access to different forms of communication.  In this way I believe communication through capitalism and technology unite a society.                  

But what about universal languages?  Expression through dance, music, and visual art are forms of communication that can be understood by any speaking language.  They convey universal emotions that can connect people because they can relate to the art.  Although, I can't make the claim that art can unite a nation.  This also made me think of the universality of sports, but we seem to divide this by nation anyways.  The competitive nature separates the nations.  Maybe instead of looking for what connects a nation, we should question what divides humanity in the first place.  Is it the territory that draws the lines or is it the language that puts up the barriers?            

Chris Phillibert So American (4)

If I'm honest, it took me a while to think about what exactly makes me American. I think my identity as an American is something I take as a truism so often that I never thought about what qualities I have that make me distinctly American besides being born in America. When I think about what makes me American I think about a varying range of topics, but the thing that most sticks out in my mind is the individualism that is ingrained in my psyche. I've always been fascinated with the meaning behind the phrase "E pluribus unum" which translates into Latin as "Out of many, one". This phrase is a hallmark of American ideology and a phrase that accurately reflects my approach to personal growth and development. It also fascinates me with regard to how America views itself. The idea that you have multiple types of people, customs and traditions that can be extremely different and yet you have to unite together to form one American identity. I think this philosophy extends to the individual as well. You are free to mold yourself into whatever type of person or version of yourself that you please, free to pursue any avenue of fulfillment of dreams that entices you, but you still feel connected with everyone around you in a way that unites you under the umbrella of "Americanness". At least, that's how the theory goes...

In chapter 4 of "Imagined Communities", Anderson talks about the creole people and how they developed concepts of "nation-ness" before some other countries in Europe. Anderson also goes into depth about what qualities of the creole community made them better equipped to handle "nation-ness" like the spread of enlightened ideas, the willingness of the upper class or leisure class to make some sacrifices in the name of greater freedom, and the rise of the newspaper. Anderson also talks about how the development of new technology and capitalism in the late 18th century contributed to the overall idea of "Americanness" as a whole. I think Anderson would support the idea that the development of new technology and capitalism especially contributes in a major way to the philosophy of individualism and personal growth that America emphasizes. In reality, "E pluribus unum" contributes to the capitalistic idea that if everyone works to improve themselves within their scenario, a nation will improve as a whole from the collective improvement of its citizens.

Though individualism promotes personal growth and advancement, there are some drawbacks to emphasizing this philosophy in an overly emphatic manner. One of the biggest drawbacks that I can point to in this philosophy is the rampant growth of selfishness and disregard for fellow citizens. If people focus too heavily on the personal growth aspect of e pluribus unum, there is a possibility that the person will disregard the aspects of togetherness and unity that this phrase embodies and instead just focus on the individual growth aspect. This leads to competition between citizens which almost inevitably leads to conflict.

Rachel Fugate Blog #3 The Power of Language

Do you speak English? How does the US configure in Anderson's notions on the role of language and literacy/print in imagining a nation?

What an interesting question to ask. Do you speak English? Such an odd thing to actually think about when every day I use the language. But I think it is very true that sometimes Americans consider English their language, when it is actually used in many different nations. But we don't classify the English language in means of a nation. Of course some would say that we speak American but when they say that they mean English, but the US can not claim that language. Anderson seemed to look at the different ways that language can form into the nations experience of formation. We use language to communicate with others. Some would say it is what separates us from other animals. While I don't completely agree with that notion it still stands that language is a major part of the human society when it comes to forming ideas.

It is interesting because just today in my philosophy class we were discussing the notion of Platonism, which deals with this kind of concept when forming ideas about an objects identity. It reminded me of our discussion about the black face minstrelsy. We use language to communicate with the world about our nation. Mcadoo was trying to use language as a tool to make people understand about his world and how his culture and nation fit into it. He was trying to change how people perceived those who are colored. Then I though even further into the Platonism theory and I found that it also carried over to The Colored Museum, much like Mcadoos work. Language and the way we use it is a way to communicate and on some level manipulate others.

The segment in the Colored Museum that stuck out to me the most was Miss Roj. The way language was used in that segment was astounding. It was colorful and vibrant and comedic, but by the end he had you thinking so much into the important concepts that he was communicating to the audience. The underlying principles that were so important to his argument were so much more persuasive when he approached the audience like he did. I had so much running through my mind when he was performing, but due to my rather limited background when dealing with the prejudice he was discussing I hardly connected with that part of his segment. I did however admire how well the language was used by the play write.

So yes I speak English, but I have no where near the ability to use it to its full potential when it comes to the ways it can be applied. English forms the basis of our nation. It can be used to bring about massive change without the need for violence. The question that this entire week has raised for me is if language is so powerful in the use of making change why do we resort to other means? What makes us abandon negotiation for unrest?

Kadijah Webster; Blog 3: The Illusion of Musicals

While watching the The Colored Museum, one scene that particularly struck me was "The Last Mama-on-the-Couch play" scene.  All of the characters were talking about serious topics, but they were all depicted in humorous ways.  The son was talking about being put down by "the man" but he dramatized it so much that the audience would find humor in it.  I feel as if portraying the his story and emotions in this way makes it harder for one to understand what he is feeling.  Honestly, I feel as if that was exactly what they were going for.  Many black voices in the media are viewed through a comical lens.  How can someone understand another person's struggle if it is punchline of a joke?  People are blind to oppression and discrimination to black and even other races of color because of the fact that within the media, the approach to showing their problems are often light-hearted.

In my class this morning, we were discussing our current novel Dessa Rose.  Well when looking for the book online I quickly found that it was also a musical, but never bothered to look into that side of the story.  When reading the book, you encounter a very serious tone about slavery and the mistreatment within its lines.  However, after viewing clips of the musical today in class, you see that there is a different approach to the story.  The songs that were heard were both upbeat and gave the scenes a happy feeling.  I don't understand how one could go towards telling a story about slavery in this way.  Maybe it was a marketing technique and the songs were written it such a way to bring in a larger audience.  Personally, I just feel as if a story about something as serious as slavery should be sung about in such easy, comedic way.  I've inserted one of the clips that I saw today and hopefully you can understand where I am coming from.

Just Over the Line from Dessa Rose

I just feel like one major reason that people are so aware of history or things around them is because of the media.  However, whether someone decides to believe that or try to educate themselves without blurred lines is the solely the person's choice and their choice only.  After my class today, I decided to approach this week's blog in a different way instead of answering the question presented to us.  This was just something that I needed to express.

Mayssa Chehata, Blog #3: Language, Nations, and all the Rest

The development of language is crucial in the formation of nations. We've discussed how a nation is created, where it exists (in my opinion, in the mind), and how it is manifested in everyday life and society. Crucial to this notion of an “imagined community” Anderson writes about are the things that connect a person to hundreds, thousands, or even millions or billions of other people, even though they often times will never see, meet or know those individuals. Language is one of those crucial connectors.

Below is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on Anderson’s Imagined Communities discussing the role and importance of language:

With print came a movement away from Latin and towards vernacular languages. These “languages-of-state” developed as demand for print increased rapidly among non-Latin speaking classes. Philosopher Ernest Blotch noted that in medieval Western Europe, “‘Latin was not the only language in which teaching was done, it was the only language taught’” (18). After print-capitalism’s rise in the sixteenth century, a rapid increase in vernacular literature was evident. Of 88 books printed in Paris before 1501, 80 were in Latin. Following this, however, the vast majority of print was in French. As Anderson puts it, “Latin’s hegemony was doomed” (18). And with Latin’s damnation came a new connecting force of the imagined community: vernacular language. As print developed in the vernacular as opposed to Latin, this connection with other members of one’s nation became more psychologically real, for just by reading in the vernacular one could imagine countless others doing the same. When Latin was the institutionalized language throughout Europe, it was easy to disregard fellow readers as distant. Only with the development of languages-of-state do we see people becoming aware of their fellow nationals. As Anderson puts it, “the fall of Latin exemplifies a larger process in which the sacred communities integrated by old sacred languages were gradually fragmented, pluralized, and territorialized” (19).

Looking more closely at the underlined segments, I think this brings up a very important point about the movement away from Latin as the scholarly language and towards vernacular languages. I have asked in previous posts if it would be possible to feel connected to the nation of “humanity,” and see one another as all alike and connected.  Thinking back to the days when the majority of books were printed in Latin and nearly all scholarship and teaching was of the Latin language, I wonder if there was this broader sense of connection/community to all the people who were learning, teaching, and reading in Latin. Or was it the case that “it was easy to disregard fellow readers as distant”? Possibly the latter, because although the printing and education was in Latin, vernacular language still existed, it was just less of a connecting force until print capitalism took hold.

However I don’t know if this is the entire story. I think about societies and communities in which print is not a big part of the culture and the way information I disseminated. In some cultures and in some nations, oral tradition is still strong and in some cases more important and more pervasive than a print tradition. An example would be the Maasai, or the Maa, language of the Maasai people of South Kenya and North Tanzania, which although it is a written language and there is a Maasai dictionary, it is not commonly written. In schools, generally Swahili and/or English are taught, however the Maasai certainly identify themselves as a nation separate from that of Kenya or Tanzania.

This can also be thought about in the context of Triumph of the Will. There seems to be some sort of national mentality that is being built, in conjunction and in exploitation of the idea of German nationalism, but something that is slightly different; almost a Nazi nation. So while these people are all connected by the German language, and we can think about the role print capitalism played in perpetuating that vernacular language, there are other important elements connecting all of these people. From the scenes we watched, a love and admiration for Adolf Hitler certainly seems to be at play. Also possibly a common sense of racism and intolerance could have contributed to the creation of this sort of a demented imagined nation within the German nation-state.

These examples make me wonder about the role other important connectors play in the imagination of a nation. Is any single one more important than the other, or do they all work in conjunction with the rest to form the “perfect psychological storm” that creates that bonding and connectivity necessary for a nation?

Nathan's Post #3: Do you speak English? vs Do you read English?

I grew up in Richmond, in a very diverse area. It was/is so diverse that when I came to William and Mary all I could think of was "wow, there are a lot of white people here". Generally speaking I have thought for most of my life that the thing that galvanized a nation is a nation's use of language. More precisely I felt that everyone speaking the same language was the most important bridge between people in the same nation. Anderson's point that there is a key distinction between print language binded national consciousness leads to this weeks question of the how does a modern nation fit into Anderson's view of printed language uniting national consciousness. Globalization and technology has made the world very small. Where it can be argued that the printing press binded nations, the internet has made print less binding and actual speech more binding to a nation. Especially in a nation like the United States printed language is not the organizing idea that binds everyone's views.

In the United States English is the predominant language most people who come here speak at least some English. The US has a high percentage of immigration so it is unrealistic to think that everyone who comes here is fluent in Enlglish, but most english as a second language immigrants can survive daily life by only knowing little conversation english. Being exposed to print media not in your native tongue is less and less likley today for many reasons. One reason is that printed media is dying, books are no longer the main way people consume information. The internet allows people who, lets say speak Spanish, to view a website that is created in English by translating it for them. Also printed media does not bind a national consciousness like it once did is because the advent of modern culture's use of images. Many English as a second language speakers can use pictures to decipher their way through everyday print. Many of my second generation Latino friend's parents can't read too well, but they usually get by pointing to pictures beside words on a menu, for example. But I can still converse with them in small ways to ask and receive simple useful information, that transfer of information is what binds the consciousness

Not to undermine Anderson on this point but that print binded the nation, but currently I dont think the binder is print. I do think that at one point in human history printed media was key to developing nations. But I think that the reason print did bind and conversation currently binds is that they allow for easy transmission of information.