Victoria Olayiwola Blog #5: Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. Provebs 31:10 (KJV)

In today’s class we availed ourselves of the opportunity to redress previous questions. One of the burning questions that was posed was can anyone empathize the black man’s struggle-from slavery, to the desperate battle for freedom, the fight for the right to be treated equally to the right to vote.

This is a question I have already answered in my previous blog in which I wrote in response to Johnno’s question that yes I believe anyone can feel the pains of the black man, for black people are humans and so are white so there really should be no issue with empathizing. The difference I would make is I don’t think those who are not black can easily identify with the plight because it is not their history but it doesn’t mean they can’t identify more broadly with the emotions and turmoil, oppression and repression the black slaves felt. For your (the slave’s) suffering has created a culture so complex in which all, yes all of us can associate in one form or the other, through one medium or another. For me, I can associate with the story of the slaves not only because I am black but because it is a story I have been brought up with. On a trip to Nigeria in 1999 my mother pointed out to me a field where sugarcane was being grown. She said to me and my siblings, look this is where the slaves would work and the white man would put padlocks on their mouths to stop them from eating the sugarcane (I believe that is how the story went). When my parents heard about Roots, the made me, my younger sister and older brother sit down and watch the whole thing. They called in some way or another “educating on our past”, and this they did because it didn’t stop there. My mother heard there was Roots: Another Generation and Alex Haley’s Queen. We have watched the whole thing. When I went back at Christmas I saw that one of the Roots editions was on our mantelpiece, which tells me that my mother was once again watching it. She really doesn't stop!

What made him move from non fiction to fiction?

Change his protagonist to a white male and student?

Tell the story of slaves through this medium? Wasn't roots enough?

Did Haley tell  his children the words of The African?

How did he take the accusation from  Harold Courlander about plagiarism in 1978? He admitted that some material of The African found its way into Roots? Do you believe he plagiarised? How do you cope with the criticisms that Haley's work is a work  of fiction not one of strict historical scholarship? Etc.

When did he decide he wanted to trace his ancestors? was this when he was at sea? 

What triggered this? What motivated him and kept him going? No doubt he faced many obstacles?

What triggered the continuation the New Generation and a genealogy search on his mother's side in the Queen? Why wasn't their documentaries post his visit to Juffure to find out how he collated things?

His search must have consumed his entire being how did and his children cope?

Presumably he funded himself, how did he find the money to sustain this adventure?

Our education did not end there for my mother went on to educate us about the problems of South Africa, we watched Stephen “Biko”, “Sarafina!”, Mandela and other documentaries on the plight of the Black South Africans. Even though I am British and of African descent and so none of my direct ancestors were taken to the New World, I guess it is because of the fashion in which I was brought up I can identify and empathize with the black man’s plight. But what remains is that we all in some way can relate with the deeds of the past and really all should. We need to understand it from both sides-the slave’s side and that of their masters-in order for us to come together, lay down the past and move on.

Our attention turned to G.C Spivak and her essay “Can the Subaltern speak?” What astounded me firstly was that it was Spivak was a woman. I was so sure it was a man. When we found out she was a woman, one of the first things I thought was how wonderful it was that she, a woman and of color, was so successful in her endeavors. Her essay “Can the Subaltern speak?” was ground-breaking. In it Spivak asks whether the Subaltern is ever given a voice to speak, these are people who are socially, politically and geographically outside the hegemonic power structure.[1]

According to Dr. Abhishek Gopal, in his essay entitled “Concept of Subaltern and Subaltern Studies”, the

“term 'subaltern' is used in post-colonial theory. The exact meaning of the term in current philosophical and critical usage is disputed. Some thinkers use it in a general sense to refer to marginalized groups and the lower classes – a person rendered without agency by his or her social status (Young, Robert J.C., 2003). Others such as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak use it in a more specific sense. She argues that 'subaltern' is not just a classy word for oppressed, for others, for somebody who's not getting a piece of the pie... In post-colonial terms, everything that has limited or no access to the cultural imperialism is Subaltern – a space of difference. Now who would say that's just the oppressed? The working class is oppressed. It's not subaltern...Many people want to claim subalternity. They are the least interesting and the most dangerous. I mean, just by being a discriminated – against a minority on the university campus, they don't need the word 'Subaltern...’ They should see what the mechanics of discrimination are. They are within the hegemonic discourse wanting a piece of the pie and not being allowed, so let them speak, use the hegemonic discourse. They should not call themselves subaltern (de Kock, Leon; 1992: 29-47). Gayatri Spivak suggests that the subaltern is denied access to both mimetic and political forms of representation.”

I think Mayssa was right to say the undergraduate who self-immolated, (Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi) and by doing so became the face of the uprising, was a subaltern. He and others who were doing menial jobs not proportionate to their degrees. They were, in the words of Gopal, within a hegemonic discourse wanting a piece of the pie and were being denied. Self-immolation seemed the only way forward and in the case of Tunisia it was the way forward for people capitalized on this man’s death to bring a system that thus far has stood the test of time.

We then turned our attention to ‘Black Girl’ a 1966 film by the Senegalese writer and director Ousmane Sembène. We were exposed to a Senegalese girl, Diouana, who has left her homeland to become a maid in France. In some respects she can be likened to a subaltern. She is far away from home, she is locked up and forced to work for people she barley knows. The type of labor she is forced to do (working in the kitchen) she did not sign up for (she thought she was going to France to look after children). She wants to be part of the French mainstream, Diouana wants to go out and more French people and be part of their discourse she wants to go to the shops and restaurants France has to offer. Instead she is considered the “responsibility” of the Madame, bullied (She is called “lazy” and considered to be like “an animal”, she is stereotyped: they say “Africans only eat rice”) thus she fits the preconceived notions, the social and racial strata, black people were categorized by) and constrained by their instructions, the Madame’s ranting and shouting (at one point she says “Why does the mistress shout at me? I’m no cook, I’m no cleaner!”) to the extent that she admits she has no life. For her France is a big hole. She wants to join their discourse, she wants to be a part of their lives and enjoy what they enjoy as members of France’s affluence class. But they provide her no chance of doing so rather they make her nostalgic. This ultimately leads her to pack up and leave-with her mask (the only symbol of her past, her home.) without the money and without anything from them or of them-such as the apron. She leaves a free, liberated and independent woman, she came a servant oppressed.

I guess my question is what has made the mistress attitude towards Diouana change? Because it her reaction to Diouana that has created in her that response which is to rebel.  It is the mistress’ reactions that has made Diouana gets tired of the oppressor and decide she want to get away from being pushed under the thumb.  The for me is the same driving force that pushed Mohammed to say enough was enough and create a culture so complex that up this day still lives on. 

There are two conflicting roles for women in "Black Girl". The relationship with Diouana and the mistress is discordant and out of sync. Both women seems to have parallel forces heading in the opposite direction.....where one wants to brutally oppress the other and force upon her menial work she herself is capable of doing. The other so fed up with the oppression decides to rebel against the norm, the rule, first by refusing to perform her given duties (like wake up on time and make coffee in the morning) and then later by flunking her apron onto the table and refusing the money (I believe her wages). Thus saying to her employers I am better than any charity you may try to bestow on me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We were graced with the presence of Alex Haley’s wife, My Haley, who came to talk to us about her past, her past with Alex Haley and the future. She talked about her latest book The Treason of Mary Louvestre. One thing she stressed, by way of chance, which our blogs are about this week is the strength and inspiration of women in her life and Alex’s.

She talked about her grandmother and how strong she was, a strength she would always remember and be inspired by. She mentioned that Alex grandmother, Cynthia, had taught him about the African, the African word for drum and the African word for river. His grandmother had inspired his long journey to find his Roots. Haley also mentioned that her grandmother too was a woman of substance and purpose.

I found her to be a strong woman too, she had to work several jobs to get a sound education. She also had to educate herself to the standard where she could understand how to write essay and the general unspoken rules found within a university setting. She gave us one account of when she had no money and needed shoes. Her mother bought shoes for her but they were 2.5 sizes too big, which made it hard for her to walk normally-every step she was taking she had to pick up the shoe with her feet or else they would fall off. Because she had no other shoes to wear that were decent she was forced to wear these boots.  This showed me the character of this woman. She was a woman with a goal in sight and she had no intention of falling by the wayside.

Her message to us was that no matter how low, poor, weak or downtrodden we may be, one can bring himself up by reinventing oneself. She told of how touched she was by Haley’s story when he came to talk at her university. By the power of his words everyone, whether rich or poor, white or black, religious or atheist felt a connection to his speech. This is something we talked about in class (whether we can feel a connection if it is not our past.). Her words confirm we can all feel a connection whether it is "our" past or not. She feels it is all of our pasts. It's all our story. She said it is important we know of it so we stop ourselves making the same mistake again. For there is power in knowing who you are, your past and the meaning of your name. She was so touched that despite being offered several prestigious jobs (like a job at Harvard) all she wanted to do was work for and with Alex. Her heart was nowhere else but in this dream.  Her faith made her, against all odds and against the views of her family, pursue a job working with Alex. She was “working” her faith.

When she went to meet her dream, she said she was the last person off the plane because she was so overwhelmed. Her journey with Alex, in relation to finishing the book and filming, was a long, tiresome one which was not without its dramas. She recalled times when they had no money and she could only afford a tuna sandwich, which she cut into four pieces. Her attender looked at her pitifully and gave her a coffee for free.

But now she can look back and smile. The TV series received high acclaim, it is still shown now-it was shown during the Christmas of 2012 and as I said earlier when I got home my mum had it on the mantelpiece, and she as usual had been watching it again. It received 37 Emmy Award nominations and won 9. It won a Golden Globe and a Peabody Award. It received unprecedented Nielsen ratings for the finale, which still holds a record as the third-highest-rated US television program ever.  

Ratings and viewers

The miniseries was watched by an estimated 130^[14][15][16] and 140^[17][18] million viewers total and averaged a 44.9 rating^[17] 66% share^[17] of the audience. The final episode was watched by 100 million viewers and an average of 80 million viewers watched each of the last seven episodes.^[6] 85% of all television homes saw all or part of the mini-series.^[6]

All episodes rank within the top 100 rated TV shows of all time.^[19]

Episode	All-time Ratings Ranking	Number of Households	Rating	Share	Date	Network
Roots Part I	#82	28.84 million	40.5%	61%	January 23, 1977	ABC
Roots Part II	#32	31.40 million	44.1%	62%	January 24, 1977	ABC
Roots Part III	#27	31.90 million	44.8%	68%	January 25, 1977	ABC
Roots Part IV	#35	31.19 million	43.8%	66%	January 26, 1977	ABC
Roots Part V	#21	32.54 million	45.7%	71%	January 27, 1977	ABC
Roots Part VI	#18	32.68 million	45.9%	66%	January 28, 1977	ABC
Roots Part VII	#50	30.12 million	42.3%	65%	January 29, 1977	ABC
Roots Part VIII	#3	36.38 million	51.1%	71%	January 30, 1977	ABC

DVD release

Warner Home Video, which released a 25th-anniversary 3-disc DVD edition of the series in 2002, released a four-disc (three double-sided, one single-sided) 30th-anniversary set on May 22, 2007. Bonus features include a new audio commentary by LeVar Burton, Cicely Tyson and Ed Asner among other key cast members, "Remembering Roots" behind-the-scenes documentary, "Crossing Over: How Roots Captivated an Entire Nation" featurette, new interviews with key cast members and the DVD-ROM "Roots Family Tree" feature.^[20]

Awards and nominations

Won

Emmy Awards:

• Best Director in a Drama Series – David Greene for "Part I"
• Best Actor in a Drama or Comedy Series, Single Appearance – Louis Gossett, Jr.
• Best Editing in a Drama Series – Neil Travis for "Part I"
• Best Limited Series
• Best Music Composition for a Series – Dramatic Underscore – Gerald Fried and Quincy Jones for "Part I"
• Best Sound Editing in a Series
• Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy or Drama Series, Single Appearance – Edward Asner for "Part I"
• Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy or Drama Series, Single Appearance – Olivia Cole for "Part VIII"
• Best Writing in a Drama Series – Ernest Kinoy and William Blinn for "Part II"

Golden Globe Award:

• Best TV Series – Drama

Nominations

Emmy Awards:

• Best Actor in a Drama or Comedy Series, Single Appearance – LeVar Burton for "Part I"
• Best Actor in a Drama or Comedy Series, Single Appearance – John Amos for "Part V"
• Best Actor in a Drama or Comedy Series, Single Appearance – Ben Vereen for "Part VI"
• Best Actress in a Drama or Comedy Series, Single Appearance – Madge Sinclair for "Part IV"
• Best Actress in a Drama or Comedy Series, Single Appearance – Leslie Uggams for "Part VI"
• Best Art Direction or Scenic Design in a Drama Series ("Part II")
• Best Art Direction or Scenic Design in a Drama Series ("Part VI")
• Best Costume Design in a Drama or Comedy Series – Jack Martell for "Part I"
• Best Cinematography in Entertainment Programming in a Series – Stevan Larner for "Part II"
• Best Cinematography in Entertainment Programming in a Series – Joseph M. Wilcots for "Part VII"
• Best Director in a Drama Series – John Erman for "Part II"
• Best Director in a Drama Series – Marvin J. Chomsky for "Part III"
• Best Director in a Drama Series – Gilbert Moses for "Part VI"
• Best Editing in a Drama Series – James T. Heckert and Neil Travis for "Part II"
• Best Editing in a Drama Series – (Peter Kirby for "Part III"
• Best Editing in a Drama Series – James T. Heckert for "Part VIII"
• Best Music Composition for a Series in a Dramatic Underscore – Gerald Fried for "Part VIII"
• Best Sound Mixing ("Part I")
• Best Sound Mixing ("Part IV")
• Best Sound Mixing ("Part VII")
• Best Sound Mixing ("Part VIII")
• Best Supporting Actor in a Drama or Comedy Series, Single Performance – Moses Gunn for "Part I"
• Best Supporting Actor in a Drama or Comedy Series – Ralph Waite for "Part I"
• Best Supporting Actor in a Drama or Comedy Series – Robert Reed for "Part V"
• Best Supporting Actress in a Drama or Comedy Series – Cicely Tyson for "Part I"
• Best Supporting Actress in a Drama or Comedy Series – Sandy Duncan for "Part V"
• Best Writing in a Drama Series – M. Charles Cohen for "Part VIII"
• Best Writing in a Drama Series – James Lee for "Part V"

Golden Globe Award:

• Best TV Actress in a Drama – Leslie Uggams

 

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaltern_%28postcolonialism%29

http://www.onlineijra.com/catogery/english%20research%20paper/Concept_of_Subaltern_and_Subaltern_Studies.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_%28TV_miniseries%29

Tatiana Bull Blog #4

  Today in class there was a brief discussion on how some African Americans are told by others that they're not really black.  But what does it mean to be black?  Unfortunately, media is one of the most damaging forces on African Americans by creating this horrible image of how they are suppose to look/act.  We have all these tv shows enforcing stereotypes (for all races) simply because it will bring in ratings due to the fact that some people will find it to be comical.  So for someone to tell a black person that he/she "acts white" is just absurd.  However, I cannot fully blame television for putting this stereotype in people's heads that all black people are supposed to be ghetto, I also blame the people who keep this stereotype alive by making a fool of themselves. If you want there to be a change in the way people view your race, make that change.
   These stereotypes television shows create are nothing but ethnic and racial designations places people in a box with parameters they are suppose to accommodate.  If speaking well, dressing nicely, and being smart is characterized as not being "black enough", then the opposite is how black people are expected be.  So if someone says that someone is not black enough they are basically saying that they are too proper for their race and that they don't fit the mold.  There is a language in society that needs to be changed.  People need to understand that races are not the determining factors of a person's character.  The color of someone's skin should not determine the type of clothes they choose to wear or the music they listen to.  And they should not be considered an "exception" to their race if they are successful because race does not limit someone's ability to learn.  Distinctions predicated on pigment, race, nationality, religion, and ethnicity are promoted to divide. Our distinctions are few and our similarities are many.


I think everyone should listen to this poem by Kai Davis. It's relevant:

Sam Quinn #3

1. YES I speak English.
2. This is something I've often wondered about language/print in the role of forming a nation, and I think it has a huge influence on a nation's development, despite normally being overlooked.

I remember once as a little kid, following my older sister around the mall as she shopped for prom dresses. We had driven up to D.C. for the day to explore some of the larger malls, and my feet were killing me, so I probably complained a ton to my Mom and older sister. However, I recall sitting outside of te dressing room and seeing two hispanic women talking by a clothes rack near me. They were speaking Spanish, & I had no clue what they were saying. That day, little kid me had some big thoughts about language--I just remember blowing my own mind haha. Pretty much, it still baffles me to a certain point today, how one can manage in a new place or country and learn to pick up the language. I know, I know...with enough time people can manage, but I just think it must be so intimidating and frightening not knowing how to communicate! Besides tht, I think sometimes we have a tendency to be less patient with people who are more difficult to understand/have an accent, than those who have a solid knowledge of English. The two women were in front of us at the register, and spoke fragmented English, yet I was super impressed with them at the time, wondering how long they had been speaking English, and if they thought it was hard to learn.

Nowadays, when I reflect on the idea of language, both spoken and written, as it relates to defining and unifying a nation, I understand it's importance. I think it gives people more of a sense of national identity, but I also think that in the U.S. (where people often speak many different languages), it has become a bit of a barrier...the same way it would in other nations. Namely with the impatience and intolerance sometimes shown to people whose second language is clearly English. I just find tat to be a bit of a bummer, and I'll share a personal story to explain my sentiments. One of my best friends at this school is Korean: he moved over here a couple years ago, attended high school and has only been speaking English for 4 years now. At William and Mary, he has a 3.8 GPA, has held many internships with various financial companies, and is one of the most down to earth people I know. Yet every once and a while, he'll mention that people make fun of his accent, or how his emails are phrased.

While I understand that language is important in regulation what a nation standards are, etc, I also just get confused with how we treat people who are clearly trying to overcome this barrier. It takes time!!! And while I know other nations treat others the same way too, I just wish it would happen less...murr :/

Curt Mills #2: Where are you from? No, where are from? What nationality are you?

My nationality and heritage are rather interesting, and in the oldest of conventional senses, pretty standard.  The term White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) is as abused these days as a loaded racial and cultural term.  Most people called WASPs or deemed “Waspy” are probably not ones, or full ones, and are probably only called that more out of a pejorative sense, or that they seem to embody qualities stereotypically seen as WASPy.

However, from everything I can glean about my heritage, I think I am actually a full-blooded, one hundred percent White Anglo Saxon Protestant, at least in the genealogical sense (not in the stereotypical financial sense.  I am hardly poor, and extremely wealthy in the macro, global sense, but my family hardly summers in Rangoon.)  So, at the risk of being recruited in to Voldemort’s pure blood army a la a Harry Potter, the two sides of my family – Mills and Schoenwetter have the following genesis. 

Mills is all English, Scottish, and Scotts-Irish.  Scotts-Irish being a very unique genealogical characteristic, and of particular pride to my family, particularly my father.  According to Wiki, “Scotch-Irish (or Scots-Irish) Americans are the descendants of Presbyterian and other Protestant dissenters from the Irish province of Ulster who migrated to North America during the 18th and 19th centuries. Most of the Scotch-Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who colonized Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 17th century.”  Much of the Scotts-Irish settled American Appalachia, including my Mills family.  Schoenwetter (meaning “Pretty Weather” in German) side is German and English, making me 100 percent from the original Anglo and Saxon tribes, and Protestant.  

Curt Mills #1: What makes a nation? What are its purposes? How do you know you belong to it?

According to the esteemed Wikipedia, “A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. In this definition, a nation has no physical borders.”  The very idea of nations and nationality seems to come in and out or favor, and with varying scope.  Is “Shaver Nation,” William and Mary basketball fans, a real nation?  Probably not, not in the sense described anyways.  Are nations even a good thing? 

The idea of nations seemed to be of paramount importance in the twentieth.  US President Woodrow Wilson discussed it glowingly in his push for and advocacy of the League of Nations, arguing that conflicts like the just passed Great War could be avoided if all peoples were granted a nation state, and when that happened, with the right to self-determination fully complete, an end point in history of sorts would have been reached.  Nationalism took an ugly turn historically with the rise of vicious nationalist ideologies in Italy, Spain, and of course Germany in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s.  Following the close of World War II, the world stage seemed to be more dominated by supernational entities—the United States and NATO, the USSR and the Warsaw Pact and the Iron Curtain, and the Third World. 

What of nations now?  What does it still mean in modernity?  Writers like the late Christopher Hitchens still pick up the project today.  For instance, he advocated forcefully for the Kurdish people to be their own nation state.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what does it mean to be in a nation as an American?  Is America a nation at this point?  We are “a nation of immigrants” is the old adage, muddying the traditional interpretation of the word, and making it still unclear what it means to be in a nation as an American.

Clarissa Blanco, Blog #3: No Ispeaki Inglesh

      In my last post I spoke about how my family migrated to Lil' Dr after leaving Santo Domingo. Want to know one major setback they evaded? The language barrier!!!!! I must admit, I've noticed that it's so hard for immigrants to come to another country and easily fit in, ESPECIALLY the US, and mooooossttt especially on the mean streets of New Yorkkkk. BUT, they inevitably made         I've been speaking English most of my life. I'd have to say, Spanish was supposedly my first language (I hardly believe my mother when she tells me of my childhood) but now a days I probably use Spanish 20% of the time. It's harder now that I'm in a school where there's so few of my people, and I'm no longer required to take a language (Thank God for 4 years of tortuous high school Spanish). I love English. Almost everyone in America knows it. I can text people in it, write in it (and get auto-corrected when I'm wrong!), and converse in it. English is the basis of which all in America is formed. But shouldn't it blow our minds that it wasn't the "first" nationally known language? Here in America we are so proud to be Americans. We are so proud of our language and ability to know it, yet not even America was founded by "Americans". If it wasn't for Christopher Columbus on behalf of Spain, there would be no America or English! My family stresses the importance of, both, being and not being "American-ized". We are supposed to be proud Dominicans; never forgetful of our language, beautiful country, and the hardships of "la patria". Yet, we make it so that our people feel like we have to hide our identity in order to be successful in America. We have to embrace the "Anglo-Saxon" characteristic of America. Find where we fit in "whiteness". Love those positions in "whiteness". Wouldn't this leave a Spanish person lost in a sea of confusion? Who am I? What do I need to do to make it? Where do my loyalties lie?
      According to Anderson, the development of imagined national communities (such as the US/America) is made possible through an interaction between a capitalism, technology of production (in this case, print), and the fatality of human linguistic diversity (p 42-43). My favorite of those enablers is linguistic diversity. Without the many languages of America, print would be of small importance. Yet, without the advancement of print technology, the languages that were introduced, with the inclusion of different, popular, dialects, would have no permanence- nothing to make it as strong today. Print revolutionized language in America. The world "dissemination" is used often in Chapter 3, which only emphasizes the effect being able to read in the same language has on the ability of an imaginied community to grow in closeness. Reading, dreaming, speaking, thinking in the same language is important in the development of closeness and connectivity without any nation/ "imagined community". One would think that making a language exclusive to one particular community makes it smaller and less connected with the world, but print made it possible for people who spoke another of the diverse languages to still feel connected to those they with whom they couldn't normally relate.
    In what ways does print effect your life? For instance, think about books, articles, even plays that can be translated to the many vernaculars of America. For your entertainment, here's a scene of the play Washington Heights, a heartfelt play highlighting the struggles of Hispanics (from my hometown) after having migrated to this country! I'd suggest anyone who can to watch the play. It'll make you laugh, cry, think, and see how much in common you really do have with others who speak a different language; how much you a still incredibly a part of our "imagined community".
                                                                                                                                                                

Rachel Choi Blog #3 Language

Blog #3

I can’t remember if there ever was a period when I couldn’t speak English.  I don’t remember if I could speak English when I entered preschool, my parents would only speak in Korean in the house and my sister would speak in English since she was four years older than me.  As a second generation Korean-American, I am just thankful that I was born in America and could learn both languages as a child.  Although I can communicate in both English and Korea in a perfect tone, my Korean vocabulary lacks in special areas such as politics or history.   

Nowadays, an increasing amount of Koreans travel overseas to receive an American education which is essential to getting hired in Korea.  A lot of my friends both international and those who immigrated feel more comfortable talking in Korean so my skills also increased as I spent more time with them.  Whenever I travel to Korea, street vendors would automatically ask me if I was a foreigner even though I thought my accent was perfect.  Interestingly, there are some words in Korean that I cannot match an English word to even though my English vocabulary is larger than my Korean vocabulary.  

In Imagined Communities Benedict Anderson says that there is a “certain privacy” to all languages.  Though you can try to find a substitute for a word in Korean, you may never actually have the perfect translation of the word.  There is a certain vernacular that develops as you experience a certain culture.  Anderson describes print languages as the basis for which language became a unified field of communication and encouraged the spread of news.  The creole people in particular whose communities formed with the help of a common language and descent developed national consciousness before the rest of Europe. Different forms of technology such as the print technology, provide new gateways to communication between nations.