Rachel Fugate Blog #4 Amurican Roots

My concept of America has been pretty strong since my birth. I grew up in the mountains of Appalachia where from since I was little I was told be a good American. Sometimes in the south, we can receive mixed signals and our view of certain things such as racism or nationality is skewed. Such as this new slang word I have been hearing, “Amurica.” I have no idea what exactly it is supposed because I have heard it used here to describe the growing intensities and negative connotations that are being put on the concepts of being America. But then I hear it at home and it is used to praise things that our country is doing. So is an “Amurican” a good term or a bad term.

            To me being an American or Americaness is exactly how Dr. Haley. A truly inspiring woman she is. To hear her speak is to hear a woman who has known ages that I have never known. I was inspired by one of her finally wisdoms that I could not have even seen with my knowledge of the actual world. She was talking about a tree and the roots that are underground. There is no way to stop them from tangling together and becoming mixed and linked. We are all from these roots, all completely linked together in this country and within the world and we cannot forget that. No matter if your black or white or any shade in between we can all say that we are American. We all claim that title and live it, accepting both the good and the painful.

            Anderson mentions the different countries and nationalities that make up the American pool, Spanish-American, African-American, Euro-American. But notice we all still hold the American, we identify with the United States, a country that has since its beginning been a struggle to create an identity. Our identity. So whether you follow sense of “Americaness” or “Amuricaness” you and I both must remember that we are still connected. I guess my question would be why we still need the distinction between these two?

Kadijah Webster; Blog 4: Being American..

Well, I guess I can start off with the fact that I was born and raised in America.  Therefore, I am a citizen and am titled American.  Whenever you see being American described in the media, there's normally a sense of community and togetherness.  I feel as if this message, along with many other messages of the media, is deceptive.  A problem with this country today is the lost of connection between communities.  There is even the fact that communities refuse to come together due to their differences in class and appearance.  So to say that I am American is only labeling me by the country that I live in.

There are many "American" communities that are close knit, but are still distant from other "American" communities.  People call themselves American, but will not come in contact with their fellow Americans due to the beliefs or ideas that they have been raised to see as right.  I think that this all reverts back to the importance of words.  American is just a word.  I would even argue that it isn't even an important word because the fact that others can disrupt the true definition of being an American.

Yes, living in a nation, you get to categorize yourself as being a native of that place.  When comes to uniting as natives of one nation, well that is something that seems almost impossible.  Personally, I feel as if in order for an entire nation to come together and call themselves one name, then they should be able to relate on a personal level rather than just their physical connection.  This is the reason why even though I may be "American," I only think of it as a title.

Nathan Reese's Post #4: Proud to be an American?

Are you really proud to be an american? After 9/11 that question became a unanimous "YES" to anyone in the United States. Americans have been easily accepting of their American-ness since that unifying event. Generally people will answer that some charismatic unifying moment like 9/11 is what makes nationalism tick. Charismatic unifying events are memorable to the everyday joe, winning a war, an olympics win, or even killing a terrorist. But I think more along the lines of Anderson, that nation-ness comes from a the culmination of external factors. Unlike Anderson I believe that Americanness emanates from the smallest of interpersonal interactions between peoples.

I come from a very unique perspective for an "american. I am a minority who has spent most of his life being the majority. I am an African American who has grown up in a majority African American area. My high school was about 40% black, 25% hispanic/Latino, 10% asian, and 25% white; economically skewed towards lower middle class. Being a minority who isn't treated like a minority allows me to have a different viewpoint of how Americanness works.  My viewpoint encompasses more than the average viewpoint, I have the experience of being an outsider to "true" americanness which can sometimes be synonymous with whiteness, and also have the experience of being the most american. Unlike Anderson I feel like Americanness, or more generally Nation-ness, is maintained from the bottom up. I feel like the interaction of someone in my community with someone else in the community fosters Nation, albeit these interactions have to be multiplied to form a nation much as a molecule must be multiplied to make a human. In my community we generally agree on certain morals, for example everyone I see I wave to. Specifically Hurricane Katrina was a black mark of government oversight should treat its citizens but at the same time when faced with an even like that Americanness can emanate. It is not the event itself but the small gestures that one person does for another not only in the face of tragedies that makes Americanness.

I feel that Anderson's idea of Nation is somewhat correct, but I feel that my problem with the chapter is a matter of semantics. I think that to create a nation-ness there needs to be a top-down approach i.e. tighter government and the spread of capitalism. I feel like Anderson could have better explored the notion of how we maintain "americanness", which is where my argument may better fit.

Brittany Liu Blog #4 A Place Called Home

The questioning of your American-ness falls into two categories: birthplace and home.  When you are born here, it is automatic that you are a citizen, but does it make you more American than someone who was born in another country, but has lived their whole life in America?  Anderson states "born in Spain, the peninsular could not be a true American" (58).  Of course he was just expressing some of the earlier ideas of citizenship, but it does make one question.  To say that person is not American would be disrespectful when that person calls America their home.  Your home gives you a sense of pride and I believe that is one of the strongest connections among all Americans.      

Even though I have roots from my grandparents and other ancestors in other countries I believe I feel as American as anyone else because this is where I grew up.  I think that your true roots stem and become grounded during your childhood.  That is the period when you truly start to shape who you are by learning, exploring, and observing.  It is the community in which you live in that contributes to your way of thinking and simply your way of life.    After hearing Dr. My Haley's inspirational speech today, the word home was reinvented for me.  It is a sacred place that is hard to replace because of all the memories that are rooted there.  Dr. Haley clearly and beautifully proved this by painting the picture of her childhood community.  It was the people that were the most influential.  Unfortunately, I cannot say that I grew up with that same close-knit community, but I still share that strong connection to my home in Cincinnati, Ohio.  We may not be the same race or come from the same state, but we both call ourselves American because that is where we call home.

No one can clearly and objectively define the American way of life, but I don't think we need to.  I think the beauty of being American is that we cannot define our way of life to a T.  It is our freedom that allows our melting pot to flourish and expand into all directions.  I have the freedom and privilege to live where I want, receive a higher education, and choose my own career and path in life.  We are all American because we not only celebrate our independence, but embrace it by cherishing our melting pot and fighting for our American dream.

    

A More Perfect Union- Guy Carmeli, Blog IV

What makes me an American, on a superficial level, is my passport or my address: a description of my location within America, be that socially or geographically. But, I maintain that it is the "claiming" a place that finalizes the process of belonging to it, or a nation. By that I mean, as a dual-citizen, I can choose to present myself as Israeli or American, and that choice makes me more American than where I live or any other detail about my life. It is a choice of allegiance, in a way.

Dr. My Haley spoke about what she considered the most difficult scene in Roots, the one we watched in class. The physical brutality is obvious, but it's Kunta's acceptance of the name Tobey that is the most heartbreaking aspect of the beating. It implies a mental and emotional defeat, a loss of home/identity, and showed a glimpse of his future all at once.

My own roots are widespread and not especially deep here in Virginia, although they are the only ones I have ever known.

Matt Raimondo, Blog #4

What exactly makes me an American?  When this question is framed towards me, I feel that there are multiple factors behind what makes me an American.  First, I was born in this country, which constitutionally makes me an American citizen.  This is rather simple in theory, but this also ties into previous posts, such as "where are you from?".  My birthright as an American makes up a part of me, and is important to my overall character composition.  Second, I am an American because of my freedoms and personal liberties.  In our American society, I am free to think and speak without restriction, which is a luxury that many places cannot afford.  Third, I am free to pursue my happiness without restriction; by happiness, I mean building a career for myself and attending an excellent university in the process.  I personally feel that these factors contribute to the base idea of what makes me an American.

However, after listening to Dr. Haley's lecture yesterday, I believe that there is more to simply being an American based solely on birthright.  Dr. Haley's story about her own personal roots, as well as her work on developing the late Dr. Haley's piece on Roots, allowed me to think more about where we all come.  This country, in my opinion, is all about roots, and subsequently what the early founding fathers all brought with them when they started this great nation.  This process repeats itself throughout history, from the African slaves bringing their own culture over to America and subsequently integrating those practices after the Civil War all the way beyond the Civil Rights Movement.  More recently, Hispanic culture is integrating itself into American society, further creating a deeper web of roots that ground the United States to it's citizens.  Asian Americans, Native Americans and other groups of people have all contributed to the web of roots that make America special, and subsequently links us all together within society as well.

Without these roots, America cannot exist.  We all must come from something, and the United States is no different.  I believe that Dr. Haley's discussion on roots made this clear to me: if we don't know where we came from, then we can never know what we may be.

Jessie Ede Blog 4 Being American

I tend to view nationality or, to be more precise, nation of origin as an accident of birth. My immediate reaction to the question "What makes you American?" is that I was born in the United States of America so that is where I got my passport. This may put me in line with the Spanish Americans (that is, those born in Central and South America) in chapter 4 of Anderson, who claimed the title due to birth. The social inability of those born in the newly colonized states to ever rise to the rank of those with European heritage is not a practice I was previously unaware of, but I think cross-applying it to today is an interesting thought exercise. For example, if I left tomorrow, moved to any other country, and never moved back to the United States of America but instead lived there for the rest of my life, would I ever cease to be American? I am sure full assimilation to the new community and country where I moved would take some time but since I am only 21 I would like to think I have around or at least sixty years left on Earth. In sixty years or so of living in one place would I be able to claim the higher status of being a local? Or would I always be an outsider? Clearly, the cultural implications are not the same as they were when the Americas were being colonized and I do not anticipate that this fictional move would result in my subjugation, but I think it may be an easier way for those of us born into the privileged position of American to think about what it looks like to step outside our nationality without traveling.

Sarah Smith Blog 4: Inside, Not Out

What struck me most in Anderson's "Creole Pioneers" was the shift in status of America, at which time it became better to be born in America that outside of it. When America was being colonized, the natives were viewed as inferior. External birth denoted greater social status. With the advent of the United States as its own nation, being American became a valuable characteristic: being born in the US was good, and being foreign-born denoted inferiority. This is when immigration surged in the country, and in a country born of immigrants, immigrants were no longer valued. American-ness meant being born here.

That hasn't really changed. If anything, I would venture to say this sentiment is deep-seated in most Americans. As the most powerful country in the world, most of us feel it is good to be from here. Foreigners, and especially those who cannot speak English (or even Spanish) are immediately at a disadvantage at no fault of their own. American-ness is about being from here and partaking in American culture, politics, and identity. Being American means identifying with those who govern, understanding their background and perhaps sharing in it. I think that there is a difference between being an American and feeling like an American. I may not share every characteristic with President Obama, but like him I have experienced many privileges and am well-educated. I feel like an American because I identify with the lifestyle of the figureheads of our country: I can understand the jobs they do and can participate in the process.

In class we discussed Spivak's description as a "third world woman in a position of privilege." Her position of privilege, particularly her education, allowed her to have a voice. She may have represented those without privilege, but her privilege allowed her the ability to participate in a world which might otherwise have shut her out. I think that so much of American identity lies in privilege, in knowing that we live in a place where, though every opportunity may not be open to us, many are. We can rise from the bottom, we can get an education, and we can participate in the greater community without living in fear of corrupt government. Being born in America generally means being born into privilege. These privileges may not mean wealth--many Americans live in poverty--but there is the possibility of rising here. It is crucial to American identity that we use that "position of privilege" for good.

Ashley Murphy, Blog 4

Using Dr. My Haley's lecture today as inspiration, I think what is the center of being an American is the fact that only a select few of us can trace our ancestry to American Indians; certainly many people may have Indian lineages within their family, but for the most part our kin arrived to America from somewhere else. This being said, it means that we all have something in common. 

Dr. Haley's storytelling was powerful and she seemed strangely familiar to me. She was very personable and some of her stories reminded me of my own childhood. She discussed how in her small community, everyone knew everyone else - and their mother, grandmother, and so on. Everyone took care of one another and her grandmother was a matriarchal figure. In a way, I think that America's sense of community is like this. When tragedy strikes or a monumental triumph occurs, we share these experiences together. For instance, I live fairly close to Virginia Tech, and after the events of April 16 there was an outpouring of support for not only the school but the community. When American teams and individuals travel to the Olympics, we join together to root for our country without regards to race, religion, or economic background. 

The feeling of home she described is one that is close to my heart as well. I know where I feel most at home currently, and I know that in the coming years my physical home may traverse this nation. Eventually, I hope to have a place to call home in adulthood that has as strong ties as the place I call home today. Autobiographies of Americans may be the most inspirational, because our backgrounds are so diverse as we fight against environmental adversity and even our own selves to achieve the American dream. That is something we can all relate to.

Laura Menzel Blog #4: We are citizens

"We may do different jobs and wear different uniforms, and hold different views than the person beside us. But as Americans, we all share the same proud title -- we are citizens. It’s a word that doesn't just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe."

--President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, February 12, 2013 

In President Obama's State of the Union Address, he closed with the sentiment "we are citizens".   Reflecting on this, I wondered what exactly united us.  One of the many things the president address was the need for stricter immigration laws and a reformed path to citizenship.  This led me to "Twilight" and the L.A. riots and the question, who is the enemy?  In Anderson's "Imagined Communities", he discusses the importance of "the relationship between the masses and the missionaries of nationalism" (Anderson, 80).  In order for revolutions to be successful, the revolutionaries had to appeal to the oppressed masses, for there is strength in numbers.  During a revolution, the ruling class was made the enemy.  With the revolution over, the oppressed masses still look to the ruling class as the enemy.  However, because they are the lowest in the hierarchy, they have no voice, and with the revolution over, they have no revolutionaries to speak for them.  The subaltern must therefore look for other ways to speak, often with violent consequences.

What makes you an American? Matt Antezana

In chapter 4 titled "Creole Pioneers," Benedict Anderson informs us how Spaniards (creoles) born in the Americas could never be considered true Spaniards by those who were born in Europe even if he was born within one week of his father's trans-Atlantic migration (Anderson, 58). The creole would be forever excluded from Spanish society by Spaniards born in the motherland even though as Anderson describes "in terms of language, religion, ancestry, or manners he was largely indistinguishable from the Spain-born Spaniard" (Anderson, 58). I bring up this quote this quote because many of these values would be considered vital if not necessary to being labeled a member of any nation/state. In many countries around the world if you don't speak the same language, follow a certain a religion, come from a distinct ancestry, or practice the same mannerisms then you will be labeled an outsider and possibly persecuted.  

My belief is that it is not necessary to have all of these values in common in order to be considered a member/citizen of a nation and that it is possible to have a country with a sense of nationalism without strictly adhering to these values. America is a perfect example of how this is possible. America is considered a melting pot and has a widely diverse population where many people come from different backgrounds with different cultures. Yet even though at times many of these individuals speak various different languages, have different ancestry, different mannerisms, and follow different religions there is still a deep sense of nationalism. There is great American pride present in many citizens in some way or another, and out military is composed of millions of Americans who come from different cultures but fight for the same country. Now while one can argue that many Americans have language (English) and some mannerisms in common, it is nowhere near close to how Anderson describes Spanish nationalism in the colonial era. 

In my case I consider myself an American. I have this view not just because I have lived in America my entire life and because I have been raised here, but because I have sense of belonging to America along with a sense of pride. Of course I share many similarities, such as being fluent in English, with other Americans but I also come from a different background than others. That is the beauty of the US where you can come from different roots and the population can be divided up in terms of their inherent culture, however when it comes down to it much of the population still has deep sense of nationalism. My question is how will this sense of nationalism be affected by the ever growing diversity in the population and further advancements in technology affect this.

Blog 4 John Wang

In chapter 4 of imagined communities Anderson points out how the Creole pioneers establish their sense of nationalism in advance of all the other European countries. Anderson seemed to draw the conclusion of a common language, heritage (where they came from), and rebellion against oppression helped chisel out their sense of nationalism. What makes me an American? To me, it’s all I know. I was born here and it has been heavily imprinted on me that this is the best place to live in the world and I see that all around me every day. It’s not perfect, but that’s important, without struggles, there is no progress…no refining process to become a better society. No place else brings together the diversity we have here. America is home for me and unless the values I believe in change I’ll be proud to be American.

Jessie Dzura, Blog #4- The Strange Innuendo that is Race

Rather than answer the professor's suggested question for the week,  I would like to discuss the subject we have mostly skirted around in class: race. For the past few sessions, we have engaged in a minor discussion of a topic that has provided a lot of controversy in our nation. The most powerful symbol of this controversy, in my opinion, has been "La Noire de..." The short film depicted the racism of imperialism. In my title, I say the innuendo of race. I mean innuendo in the most direct sense. The dictionary defines innuendo as "an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or derogatory nature". "La Noire de..." showed the indoctrinated racism of the French employers, the racism of the viewer, and the assumptions made about civilization by La Noire.

Let me explain. "La Noire de..." was very careful to depict the main character as sophisticated and intelligent. She spoke French, dressed in beautiful tailored clothes,  and desired to be part of, what most consider, an elite society. Because of her dark color and her African heritage, her French employers saw only what they wanted: a lazy, unintelligent person, good for nothing but service. I was displeased to find myself surprised by the sophistication of "La Noire". Stereotypes still exist in our society. Going along this point, "La Noire" was full of her own assumptions about French society. The gaiety, the lavish clothing, the elite quality of it all. The point of "La Noire" was to show these stereotypes and undertones of cultural imperialism, while having the audience relate to the main character. Anyone can relate to the idea of feeling imprisoned and desiring autonomy and independence. Classic American cinema depicts this same desire for freedom and independence when relating to a woman of white descent, Holly Go Lightly in "Breakfast at Tiffany's". See below! Clearly, race and gender are still important issues in our society that we should not be afraid to discuss.

Paul Varjak: Holly, I'm in love with you.
Holly Golightly: So what?
Paul Varjak: So what? So plenty! I love you. You belong to me.
Holly Golightly: No. People don't belong to people.
Paul Varjak: Of course they do.
Holly Golightly: I'm not going to let anyone put me in a cage.
Paul Varjak: I don't want to put you in a cage. I want to love you.
Holly Golightly: It's the same thing.
Paul Varjak: No it's not. Holly...
Holly Golightly: I'm not Holly. I'm not Lula Mae, either. I don't know who I am! I'm like cat here, a couple of no-name slobs. We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to each other.

Sam Quinn blogpost #4

It is difficult to describe what American-ness is; because honestly, in my opinion, it is a different experience for everyone based on their race, gender, and socio-economic status. I agree with what we talked about today with Spivak, and think that when looking at this question from her P.O.V.,  she would see the idea of "Americanism/Americanness" itself as a median perhaps, and thus would allow for everyone inside class/outside class/etc to explain their answer from their perspective, but also question them to look at this prompt from the vantage points of others in different situations.

For me, I consider myself an "American" first and foremost. What does this mean to me? That I was born here, as were my parents. That I have lived here and been a citizen here all my life. That I speak the chosen native language of our nation, have enrolled and fulfilled many levels in schools here, and plan to get a job in America once I graduate from W&M. My relationship with this country is pretty straightforward on the surface, but I think there are more personal aspects for why I find myself choosing to explain my role here as being full of 'Americanness'.

For instance, I defend our country. I don't support everything we've done to our own citizens and other nations around the globe, but I also feel distinctly attached to my nationality, especially when I travel abroad. My friend and I were talking about this idea today; whether or not it is rational, I feel like we can criticize and scrutinize America, it's politics, it's problems, etc much more comfortably on our own soil than when visiting foreign countries. Maybe this is b/c when abroad I can't get over my "americanness" or more likely I would just rather not give foreigners a snapshot of America that is unfavorable (b/c they don't know all of the good that happens here too). Whatever the case, I feel more American when put in a situation that causes me to stand out as different.

This reminds me of what we talked about in class today, which kind of threw me through a loop. By defending my Americanness, I feel like I am defending my right to my experience in this country, and it makes me sad that external factors can influence our definition and experience of Americanness...even though I understand how they do. Someone's comment today made me wonder if as a little elementary schooler, I'd ever made one of my Black friends feel "less black" by hanging out with me, or if others ever explicitly said it to them...it just goes to show that we still compare our situations in life with "whiteness," and it makes my skin crawl, eek!

Tenille Jensen Blog #4

I think the question of what makes me (or anyone else for that matter) an American relates a lot to the group discussion we had last class about fitting the stereotypical image of ones racial identity. We talked a lot about black identity during that discussion, causing many African American students to comment on their own experiences of being black. That sounds a little cray cray to actually write and read out loud but many students explained situations of being ridiculed for not being “black” enough or not being viewed as black at all despite the obvious color of their skin. I do relate to being categorized according to my clothing, color, speech, hobbies, and choice of music, even being female - I am sure most Americans can. It’s almost as if  material things, level of education, mannerisms etc. create race rather than the blatantly obvious color of someone’s skin. The way I speak, my choice of friends, the kind of music I enjoy, even the way I choose to dress, places me into a category of being “black”, “white”, “Asian”, “Spanish” etc. in American society

So what does it means to be American? I guess what I am trying to say is to most Americans, perceived race shapes the way they are defined in America. This  directly influences our experiences and subsequently the way we personally define “Americanism”. Because such a heavy emphasis is placed on race relations in America, it’s hard not to bring up the idea of race (and even gender) when discussing different aspects of Americanism. It’s a very large part of our history. It is through these distinctions that create very unique facets of the American dream....or nightmare. When talking about international diplomacy, the Olympics, or even taking a vacation outside of the United States, the idea of Americanism takes a very different role. We have a tendency to be lumped into the unified colorblind category of Americans, full of patriotism and pride (and rightfully so because we should certainly be proud to live in such an affluent country) but does the idea of Americanism take the same shape when dealing with the everyday trials and tribulations seen within American society? 

Whether we mean to or not, American society functions superficially on stereotypes where the majority of Americans quickly learn to find their place within a society dominated by a neutral category: white males. Our history has reinforced the way we view and respond to race today. We are all placed and categorized in accordance to a radicalized spectrum in direct relation to a neutral category. So for me being an American means being a proud West Indian immigrant and the experiences I have endured as a West Indian. Although I am extremely proud to live in America, I constantly reminded that I am not a white male - this has shaped the way I view Americanism as well. Everyone’s story leading to their unique perspective on Americanism is different but I believe it begins with race unfortunately. 

Tonisha Spratte Blog #4 What makes me an American?

What makes me an American?

What makes me an American?  I don’t know, the fact that I was born here is the best reason I can think of, there are many examples throughout chapter 4, where Anderson mentions how different people determine who is a native or citizen of an area and it is dependent on where they were born (the definition he uses of a Creole).  This, in my opinion, is the foundation of all the other reasons one may feel that they are an American.  Additionally, another criteria Anderson speaks of throughout the chapter is Language.  On page 56 he says “But in experiencing them as travelling-companions, a consciousness of connectedness (‘Why are we… here… together?’) emerges, above all when all share a single language-of-state.” This makes me think of the question asked last week.  “Do you speak English?”  Is this the link that makes one feel just that much more Americanized?  Are birth place and language the two heaviest criteria to be weighed when thinking about what makes one an American?

I immediately think of the very first movie we watched.  Nathan, although seemingly confused, ultimately had a sense of belonging to the family he grew up with in America.  Nathan was bilingual but was more fluent in English and felt the connections with his adopted family because that was the language he grew up speaking and that was the family he was raised with.  In addition to this movie when thinking about nationality and its foundations in language and place, I think about La Noire de… (Black Girl).  There was one point in the movie where someone, I believe it was the mistress, was calling her an animal and saying that she doesn’t know how to speak French.  This seemed to be a tactic in order to make her feel like she was less than les patrons, the so-called French people she was working for.  When the mistress made this claim it was in order to mock her, to put her down.  Of course the mistress knew she spoke French, otherwise how else could they understand each other?  It just seemed like she needed to make herself feel better and the best way she could do that was by asserting her superiority over the little black girl and putting Diouana down.  This is why I believe it is another great example of how language can make people feel connected and by saying that she doesn't speak French the mistress is trying to put more space between herself and Diouana.

Being born in America, I am used to the ways, the language, the habits, and mannerism of Americans.  I feel that there are many differences that people claim even though they are all Americans.  Although we may not have all been born here, language is the one thing that we all share.  There may be someone out there thinking, ‘but there are people who live in the United States and do not speak English.’  Well, let’s be honest, do they think of themselves as Americans?  If one speaks no English at all, was he or she actually born here and consider him or herself an American?  On the whole, the answers to those questions are no.  And sure there are different dialects and slang, but the ability to communicate is essential in forming bonds with other people.  Which is why I could argue that Diouana’s refusal to speak to the mistress was Diouana’s way of protesting her working and staying there.  By not speaking with this woman, she gives the mistress no opportunity to learn about her through conversation.  There are some who say language is the only thing separating us from the animals (although, ironically, there are some animals who can talk).  Even with language and birthplace being two of the most pervasive characteristics of an American, one’s “Americaness” is not based on some concrete characteristics that someone else thinks an American should have but it’s one’s own feelings of connectivity and relation to this nation.  Language happens to play a key role in the way we communicate in order to build relationships, form bonds, and create memories which make us call any one place ‘home’.  Also, the simple fact of being born in a place will leave most people with a feeling of connectedness to said place. 

In all, I think to be American is a feeling.  This feeling is created by many different things but the main two foundational characteristics are birthplace and a shared language, which Anderson seems to think is fundamental in forming a community.  In fact, it is such a strong foundation that some people, who do not want to be associated with others, may try to sever their ties on this very basis.

Side note:  This topic brings up a more specific topic, one relevant to me:  What makes someone an African American?  What does it mean to be black?  Is it the language, Ebonics?  Is it the color of one’s skin?  Is it one’s mindset?  Is it the clothes one wears, the food one eats, or the music one listens to?  What about where the person is from, or better yet, the amount of money flowing into the household?  I will not answer these questions here but merely pose them to everyone else, maybe just as a something to think about when eating some cereal or working out at the gym.

Blog 4, Coleen Herbert

    One notion of "Americaness" that Anderson touches on that I definitely can't relate to is that of rebellion. My roots in America extend back to the 1920s. I don't consider myself to have Creole roots. I do, however, consider myself to have Creole history. We discussed in class the idea of "owning" history, or feeling included in a cultural history or narrative. While I'm not a person of color, the history of American people of color is also my own. The dominant discourse is quick to marginalize and separate history when it is in fact a collective.
    I had always assumed the opposite of Anderson about the birth of Nationalism. Anderson writes that "neither economic interest, Liberalism, nor Enlightenment could, or did, create in themselves a kind, or shape, of imagined community to be defended from these regimes' depredations" (65). For some reason, a combination of these parts was what was always taught to me. In the expansion of his thesis, Anderson deconstructs and de-centers a la G.C. Spivak.
    I think that Spivak's subaltern has been reiterated endlessly since the piece's publication. For instance, waves of queer suicides and suicides committed by people who have mental illness seem to me to be examples of the subaltern speaking. Each of these groups has been oppressed (more often violently than not) in a such a way as to impose silence upon them. The institutionalization of the mentally ill can be viewed as a sort of hate crime in itself. I would argue, however, that the examples are more prominent for homophobia.
  Americaness to me is about absence and oppression, about connecting with people via difference. When Diouana takes back the mask she gave her mistress in  La Noire de..., the subaltern speaks. Diouana is kept at arms length from Frenchness. Instead of admission to a culture, she is racially barred from gaining access to a world outside of the apartment that she lives in. By taking back the mask, Diouana's silence speaks. She refuses to be remember that she is a "maid". She refuses to let her culture be signified as an art piece in a Frenchwoman's home. Americaness and all other "nesses" are active pathways that can be forfeited with silence. I think that the ness is conveyed by the subaltern.