Tenille Blog 5

Black Girl, by Ousmane Sembene, was a great portrayal not only of what it meant to be black during the 1960’s but most importantly, what it meant to be an ambitious woman during that time period. Both gender and race were (and continue to be) two very stigmatized and socially constructed groups within society and in this film.  Diouana’s journey left a lasting impression on me as I think back on her parading through the streets of her town with the African mask concealing her face. In that moment, she felt a very important concept we discussed during our discussion last class: freedom. Watching her in that moment, I felt a sigh of relief. She seemed free from her circumstances and hope....hope for a better future. In that moment it seemed as though she felt detached from any worry or feelings of dependency. I can imagine as a woman (and most importantly a black woman growing up in sub-saharan Africa), it was something Diouana wanted to soak in because it was a momentous occasion. She was liberated and I felt her happiness. It really resonated with me during the scene when her mother heard the happy news and although excited, told her daughter to be brave as if foreshadowing the hardship she would soon endure as Doiuana ventured into life beyond the parameters of her African mask.

I knew Doiuana craved this independence as a woman when she became even more excited about having the opportunity to live and work in France. Most people would be excited but also a little afraid of the unknown - leaving family, friends, and their lover behind – especially during that age when women were seen as more dependent on males. Doiuana’s carefree response validated that fact that she was ready for her journey and saw this as an opportunity to experience her own life which is why she harped on the idea of her mistress taking her to see the city and fantasized about all the things she would be able to explore while in France. Despite having to be separated from her lover, it was quite obvious that she was more excited about the adventures that lay ahead.

At first I was shocked at the ending when she committed suicide but thinking about it more in relation to this idea of “womanhood,” I can understand what drove her to such a terrible act. As a female, especially in those days, women are always constrained in someway by society. Whether we look at it in the context of 1960 or 2013, women are continuously stigmatized by their gender.  Not only did Doiuana have to face life as an African, she had to face life as a woman as well – enslaved both by her race and gender. Once she realized the realities of a cosmopolitan lifestyle were shattered by the harsh treatment she endured from her French mistress, she felt as if there was no escaping the biological constraints that will continue to prevent her from having the life she wanted to live. As she expressed in the movie, she refused to be anyone’s slave any longer; she would rather die on her own terms rather than suffer a slow death of servitude for the rest of her life.  She simply wanted more. It was in that moment that Diouana finally called the shots – no longer shackled to the destiny of an African woman during that time, Doiuana chose to reclaim her identity.  When I think of the term “womanhood” my mind is immediately brought the terms survival and bravery – especially in the context of this film. Throughout history, woman have had to learn how to survive despite the extremely important role they play in society. Unfortunately that importance isn’t recognized for all its worth. Woman have been silenced and have found ways to persevere. Doiuana exemplified this notion of survival with her desire to leave a lasting impression. I don’t think she killed herself because she couldn’t take life itself anymore, I believe she wanted to leave a lasting impression as a woman and as a African. She became the subaltern and chose to make the most impactful statement through her silence.  

Coleen Herbert Blog 5 Woman and Nation

Gender has been performed in a variety of different ways in the films that we have viewed thus far in class. In  Twilight, Anna Daveare Smith uses her body as a canvas to perform both genders. Gender is fluid in Twilight because the performance demands that it be. Gender is also a channel of oppression. The women in the performance take on different roles than the men as survivors of violence.Gender was also at times deliberately hard to distinguish in the performance. It was unclear until the name of the speaker appeared (because our language is based on a gender binary) as to what the gender of the speaker was. The performance shows that gender is itself a performance. Androgyny was at times the best way to convey the meaning of each monologue because it asserted power in the face of patriarchy by rejecting the gender binary.

  In Black Girl, Diouanna and her mistress present two modes of female oppression. The film depicts a strong example of what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The mistress acts as an oppressor although she is oppressed herself. Her husband is clearly controlling of her and enjoys demeaning her. The film makes it look like the two women in it are involved in a hierarchy of oppression. To quote Audere Lorde, however, "There is no hierarchy of oppression".  Diouanna and her mistress exist on an axis of oppression, a horizontal chain of difference. Diouanna's race and class cause her to have a different female experience than her mistress, a differnet type of oppression. Although the mistress learns oppression by being oppressed and enacts it upon Diouanna, she is not hierarchically in a better position than Diouanna is. She is, however, the person of privilege in the situation who refuses to acknowledge their privilege in order to enact change.

  Women make few appearances in Anderson's text.  As consumers of lexicographers, women helped establish national languages (Anderson 75). As the bourgeois became literate, women helped foster the masses. Nationalism was largely dependent on mothers. Children's first encounters with the nation would be in their homes, in their primary communities. Anderson uses the verb "to birth" often when he references nationalism. This genders the nation as a female vessel. Ultimately, I don't know why Anderson doesn't mention the role of women more often. The text seems somewhat male-centric so far.

Jillian Turner Blog # 6: Freedom from Violence

Ousmana Sembene's film Black Girl highlighted many of the issues of race we have discussed in class. Diouana, a senegalese woman, was brought to France to work for a family as a nanny... or so she thought. Once there, however she realized that she was being exploited as a domestic slave. After struggling with her predicament, she committed suicide by cutting her throat in her master's bathtub. After Diouana's death, her master returned her belongings to her family and offered Diouana's mother monetary compensation. She refused the money and the man left, followed by a boy wearing a tribal mask.

As many of my peers agreed in class, this even-keeled story offered many sobering points. For the most part, the movie was bland: little music, little excitement. Despite this fact, Sembene manages to make a crucial point about society. Because of her race, Diouana was treated like a second class citizen. She was taken from her home, hoping for a better life for herself, but was unpleasantly surprised when she realized her real role in her new household. This is a universal theme: excitement and optimism that is drowned by cynical reality. In addition, I found it particularly interesting that she killed herself rather than just ran away. Granted, that most likely was not an option but I thought that her suicide was unintentionally profound.

Diouana's suicide connected to a theme of violence that has been constant in our cultural studies in this course. The Rodney King beating, the LA Riots, and now the murder of Vincent Chin are the results of a constant unrest in our country, but relate to global issues of social and cultural injustice. This newest film introduced Detroit, Michigan as the home of Vincent Chin. Soon after, we saw both a juxtaposition of a woman saying "you just don't walk away after you kill a man" and another of four men singing an upbeat tune. Needless to say, this stirs the plot line of the film. The woman's factual statement gives us insight into what actually happened while the men singing seem out of place but clearly serve a purpose. Like Diouana's death, the death of Vincent Chin had an apparent purpose. It was later stated in the film that his killers murdered him because they thought he was Japanese. This at first confused me, but when I realized that this was Detroit Motor City Michigan, it grimly made sense that the men would take out their frustration of their shrinking business on someone whom they believed represented the competition.

According to David Kessler, such violence is the result of "a profound desire to keep the order of binary gender natural or necessary, to make of it a structure, either natural or cultural, or both, that no "human" can oppose and still remain human." I take this to mean that violence is used by one human against another as a means of power that cannot be opposed. If this is true, however, what the significance of self-harm? Yes, this theory applies to the case of Vincent Chin, but does it apply to Dionana's suicide as well?

On another hand, both examples of violence were brought on by racial issues. With Diouana, she struggled with language barriers between herself and her master along with the domestic slavery. This language barrier was understated in the film but, when related to Anderson, poses a greater question. In Chapter 4, he discusses Creole Pioneers and, like chapter three, stresses the importance of language in a community. Language differences often serve to exacerbate existing racial tensions.

Similar issues of language as it pertains to racial differences exist today. In particular, the argument to make English the United States' official language is hotly contested simply because of the high number of non-English speaking people in the country. In Arizona, a state that is home to many Spanish-speaking people, it is against the law to teach in spanish in a public school. This perpetuates the racial and language barriers. Is this also a form of racial violence?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-ethnic-studies-cl_n_558731.html

Yue (Ivy) Blog #4: Reflect on your own position and experience with what makes you an “American” in reference to the other notions of “Americanness” Anderson describes in ch4.

In Chapter 4 of his book, Anderson describes the development of creole-centered institutions in the Americas, which borrowed profusely from European notions of capitalism and democracy. Anderson describes the movement of Europeans to the new world as intimately tied to the notion of print-capitalism, or the process by which formally exclusive knowledge became readily accessible to middle-class citizens. In a sense, this sharing of specific kinds of knowledge like the American constitution, or Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations leveled the playing field for a growing bourgeoisie. The intended or unintended result was the formation of imagined communities centered on political administration as it related to the middle classes particularly in the New World. In a sense, a greater inclusion of creoles and natives in the New World was in essence a self-serving priority. In Bolivia and other South American countries, the inclusion of natives was a defensive reaction against revolting sub-groups of disenfranchised population areas. In Brazil, the Portuguese monarchy invested huge sums to move its administrative functions across the Atlantic, which ultimately preserved Don Pedro’s hold on power against the Napoleonic threat. The unintended result however, was the creation of bureaucratic and administrative institutions, which set the foundations for the formation of modern societies based on early models of democracy and capitalism. In the case of North America, the formation of the United States was centered on interests concerning taxation.

In my opinion, Americanness is very much defined by the notion of contracts and recorded legal precedence. Americans in a sense live in a fair society but not necessarily free. By this I mean that American culture is very much determined by written history. I understand this because of my experience living in communist China. I would say that Chinese society is very much based on hierarchies previously delineated by a Confucian understanding of power (now more so by socioeconomic position). This kind of society tends to be submissive in relation to higher order groups.

Additionally, I believe that what makes Americanness (South and North American) is the critical interaction between the colonizing culture and the colonized native communities. In a sense, especially in South America where natives and imported slaves (and creoles as well) interbred to a point that racial differences become moot, the culture itself is a constant obsession with discovering that which has been lost of native history along with a longing for mercantile modernization with a simultaneous/active rejection of the foreign.

North American, or specifically the USA, is of course a collection of sovereign states bound by a federal union but in a sense it is not the same as the European Union though the federative organization is theoretically of the same kind. This involves a measure of history and language (though Anderson refutes this), a connectedness that is evident in the federal-state level of analysis but that differentially exists in other realms of society, which may or may not be visible or apparent or even real. Americanness can also be stated in the light of immigrantness. The North American continent with the exception of Mexico (but not really) is a nation less about reconciliation of a fragmented identity but the consolidation of a variety of sub-cultures. The effect is that the society becomes diverse enough to have sub-cultures but broad and accepting enough to allow them to coexist without critically debilitating inefficiencies. The function of culture after all is inclusion- in America.

What Makes an American - Emil

What makes an American?

I would like to approach this question by first inspecting an analogous one: What makes anyone part of a nation? I know we discussed this question earlier in the semester, and reached some interesting conclusions. To be part of a nation is to be share in a sort of commonality with your neighbors and peers. A nation can be composed of many people who come from different backgrounds, but share in some sort of common heritage or set of ideals. Taking that an applying it to America, we can say that to be an American means to be like other Americans. Other than following a bit of circular logic, it makes sense. What it means to be an American is that a person is able to connect with other people in this country, who also call themselves American.

I, as I've mentioned before, am fairly new to this country. I am in that gap generation that has to be constantly trying to figure out what it means to be part of a culture, or what my own race is. I consider myself an American because I can relate to my fellow Americans. I speak the language, both colloquial and formal, and blend in with the culture.

So I would say that to be an American means to be able to relate to your fellow countrymen, no matter where you are in the world. There is something special knowing if you meet someone across the world who considers themselves to be from the same country as you, you both automatically have something in common, something that binds you two completely.

Jonno Marlton #5: Womanhood in the Colonizing Process

In Anderson the discussion of “womanhood” is absent, but there is enough material in the first five chapters to draw conclusions about the role of the woman in nation forming.  We have tracked the dominance of the white European hegemony in factors of expansion, especially the development of print media, and it is safe to say that the woman has been largely left out.  In the case of the Creole Pioneers, we have a generation detached from their mother land.  Their subservient status comes from the white, male hegemony, but their existence, of course, was dependent on women. 

            Creating a new nation requires having children and passing down the laws, which were made by men, and the customs, which were created in a male-centric society.  I would argue that the woman was, in some ways, a colonial tool.  We can see this in La Noire de because the wife was responsible for the family.  She was in charge of the cooking, cleaning, and child rearing.  Granted, she did none of this, but her role in the structured, white French society was to spread the aims of colonialism by indoctrinating the young African woman to submit to the whims of the white “masters.”  Despite the fact that women were lower in society, the male leaders used them when convenient to spread ideas of colonialism and nationalism.  For example, we see in Anderson that even though print was reserved for men and Europeans did not typically formally educate their daughters, the modern Greeks, in an effort to promote nationalism, translated many books and even educated their daughters to read them.  (Anderson 79)

            But, the place of women in society came from their usefulness to the predominating masculine powers.  Allowing women to read was seen as beneficial for the nation, so it was promoted.  We are, of course, still talking about the women from the colonial powers.  On the other hand, as we see from Diouana, she was expected to be content with what she was given, accepting work from white neo-slave holders.  Her actions in the end when she slits her throat demonstrate an attempt to “speak.”  Spivak would ask who is listening, but, nonetheless, the action is a powerful one, and we see a woman standing up against the status quo.  This idea of female empowerment is also demonstrated in The Colored Museum when the woman lays the egg.  Her mother puts her down and degrades her sense of self worth, a condition that arguably comes from the masculine hegemony.  The accidental act of laying an egg and becoming special is a reaction against society’s relegation of women to a subservient position.

My question is what are some ways in which the members of male-centric colonizing powers used women (on either side of the colonizing process) for their political and cultural gains? 

Rachel Choi Blog #4 American

Just a couple days ago, my friends and I went on an outing to Buffalo Wild Wings.  It was really late and there were just a few customers including us.  As soon as we were seated, an elderly woman came up to me and asked me where I was from.  Now, on any other occasion I would normally say " Oh, I'm Korean"  but for some reason this time, I said "I'm American."  My reply didn't stem from  being ashamed to say I was Korean though.   Right after I said that I was an American, she asked me "I meant where are your parents from?"  I told her my parents were Korean and she then replied that she thought I was Chinese at first sight.   I know it might not seem like a lot when someone says that you look like another nationality, but Chinese people and Korean people have distinct features that I wish people would attempt to recognize.  It is not that I am offended that I was mistaken as Chinese but unsettling that a lot of people automatically assume that you are Chinese if you are Asian.
She then explained to me that she actually lived in China for two years and wondered if I was also Chinese so that she could practice a little Chinese on me.   Luckily, my other two friends actually took Chinese language courses here so they exchanged greetings.
 If someone were to see me in Korea, they would know that I was born in America.  Although I am told that I don't have a particular accent when speaking Korean, shop owners automatically pinpoint my accent and guess that I am from America.  I thought that if I live in America or Korea I could pass as an American or Korean, respectively.  But because of the fact that I lived in America all of my life, the values, mannerisms, and open mindedness made an imprint on myself that showed through my persona.  These "American" characteristics contrast to Korea's concept of a collectivist society.
I was taught to develop a sense of self- identity and shown how to make my voice heard while children in Korea are immersed within a society that enforces a strict education early on.  Korea's education system is found based on the Confucianism system.  The reason why Korean's stress education so much is because the mindset of the Koreans follows the idea that since parents will be taken care of the children, the children must have a successful education in order to gain a career that will reflect a positive social status that will in turn represent the family.
 I did not understand why my parents immigrated to America.  They knew that the move would mean that they would have to start all over in a whole new world in which they didn't even master the language of.  20 years ago, there was something about America that attracted hundreds of thousands of immigrants into a new land.  As a second- generation child who is only the second in my family to receive a full college education, I now know why my parents made those sacrifices.  America promises a future, one that is different from the ordinary path that was chosen by my parent's friends.   This future though, has become less promising as Americans have somehow reversed their priorities to satisfy current needs while sacrificing the future.  My question is, how long will it take to realize that if we don't turn back to our founding father's mentality to sacrifice the present for the future, our position as the world's leading power is most certainly likely to cease to exist?

Grace O'Donnell America

While reading through the responses to this week’s blog question about what makes us “American”, I found myself getting frustrated. People were dismissing what I find to be essential factors of my Americanness. When I’m asked where my family is from, the best answer I have is America. Is it wrong to say my roots are American? Or that America has shaped my identity? Surely the connection and appreciation I feel towards this country aren’t only in title. So, as I read on and found it harder to resist punching something, I thought about what I would name as the most important part of my Americanness. The first thing that came to mind was individuality. The United States is a place that allows for and encourages a strong sense of self. Even when Americans go abroad, that individualism stays with them. But if my answer to what makes me American is individuality, I can’t be mad that people disagree with my view of Americanness. Disagreement is American. That we all hold such different opinions of what it means to be American is, I think, only possible because of our Americanness. 

Jamar Jones- Blog #2: Finding YOUR From Place

            I think the process of simply knowing thyself will be a continuous work in progress and it is never an easy thing. I always loved the saying, “in order to know where you are going, you must know where you came from.” It’s kind of funny to think about, because how many of us actually know where we are from…because I sure don’t. I have always lived in Richmond, VA, but I don’t know much more beyond that tidbit and where my mother and father’s families originated. Our exercise in class when everyone began to discuss where they were actually from made me start questioning who all of my ancestors were. My knowledge only goes back as far as one great-great grandmother I am aware of. I don’t know how accurately any of us can claim where we are from because when you stop and think about how much history there is behind one person who knows where any of us are from? The best assumption I can make is that I am an American who has a lot of other pieces to his make-up.

            In watching Anna Deavere Smith’s Twilight: Los Angeles 1992 it was interesting to see how many different types of people were affected by the Rodney King case. All of these people represented different social classes and racial backgrounds yet they were all affected by the same thing and concentrated in one area. I pondered throughout the performance who were the people Anna Deveare Smith portrayed and what their individual stories were. I realized that while these people were from different places they were places they were representative of Los Angeles at a pivotal moment in history. The city was torn by the legal system and by riots, and the people were emotional. I think because there were groups representative of so many different cultures the impact was so much stronger. People bring who they are and where they are from to new destinations all the time. Twilight shows how such a difficult period of time also shifted and restructured a community. I think the variation in individual’s nationality is highly complicated but necessary.

            Finding where you are from is a challenge, but it can really help you move forward to where you want to go. I think there is a great power in blended nationalities because even though all of our nationalities are unique as you live there is no way that they won’t become blended because of basic interactions with others. I think we are from everywhere.

Mayssa Chehata, Blog #4: American-ness, the Nation, and Nations at Odds

What is American-ness, and what does it mean to be an American? I think the answers to those questions vary for every single person. While we all belong to the American nation, and are connected to it in one way or another (even if that connection is simply that we live on American soil or that we speak American English), each person’s idea of what being American means varies; the degree and nature of each individuals connection to the American nation is unique.

I personally have spent a lot of time reflecting on this question. My parents immigrated to the US in the 90s from Tunisia, and I grew up in a household that was very concerned with ensuring I did not lose my Tunisian heritage. I spent months each year in Tunisia visiting my family, and my mother was inexhaustibly dedicated to making sure my sister and I spoke our mother tongue, Arabic. We ate Tunisian food, spoke Arabic at home, and had many Tunisian and Arab family friends. In addition, I was attending American school in which I was immersed in a melting pot of cultural diversity, but also exposed to what could be referred to as “American culture” which I did not experience as strongly at home.

So where do I lie? Is there a spectrum of American-ness, on which descendant of the first settlers are the “most American” and first generation immigrants and naturalized citizens are the “least American”? I definitely don’t think this is the case. I really enjoy and agree with the political cartoon below:

So my opinion is that American-ness is in the eye of the beholder. I guess for me American-ness is having a strong sense of civic duty, within the country and internationally, and using the opportunities and resources available to us to try to affect positive change in our communities, the country, and the world. This is not to say we should overstep our boundaries, or exploit this position of power (e.g. Iraq War), but that we should be socially aware, conscious, and empathetic.

Another interesting thing to consider is how people can and usually do exist in multiple nation. For me, I belong to the American nation, the Tunisian nation, the nation of Arab-Americans, you could ay I belong to the nation of people who share my political views aka my political party as a nation, etc. From the very interesting lecture by Professor Chinua Thelwell on Minstrelsy this is something I thought about in regards to Orpheus McAdoo, and several classmates brought this up as well. We discussed how when performing in South Africa, McAdoo made concerted efforts to be viewed as, and to be integrated into, the “coloured” community/nation, in distinct opposition to being part of the “native” or “black” community/nation. But this was possible because of the 3-tiered racial system in South Africa. In America, where it was the “one drop rule” that dictated race relations, McAdoo was easily identified as part of the “Black” community/the African American nation.

This makes me wonder about McAdoo’s different identities, and his belonging/identifying as/being placed into these different nations or communities. Were his different identities in conflict or in opposition to one another? Is there such a thing as “conflicting nations,” meaning you cannot simultaneously belong to 2 different nations because they are fundamentally opposite (according to society, or to yourself, or to the members of those nations). For example, in the case of McAdoo, who was practicing uplift politics in order to be viewed as a member of high-class and civilized society (something that Blacks in America, especially in the South, still were not always viewed as), he was inherently a member of the African American society and due to physical features could not not be a part of that nation. So since in the eyes of many white, upper class Americans, being Balck and being upper class were inherently opposite, did that make it so that there was a highly constricting limitation on McAdoo’s quest to belong to both? Or in my personal case, I am a Muslim, an Arab, and an American. But I would say that during the year following 9/11, there were many Americans who saw those nations to be in conflict with one another, and many who said and still do say that you cannot be a Muslim or an Arab and be a “true” American (whatever that means).

So this brings me back to my original point, and raises several questions in my mind. While each individuals’ personal views and beliefs about a nation are very important in shaping and imagining that nation, society has its own views of what the nation is, and what is and what is not the nation, and who does and who does not belong in the nation. So which is more important, the individual notion, or the notion of society/the collective opinions of those within the nation. Because although McAdoo did what he could to be viewed as high class, or “coloured,” or even maybe “white,” if those “nations” were not willing to accept him, could he ever really be a part of them? Or in my case, despite being an American citizen, and considering myself a highly assimilated and culturally integrated Tunisian-America, if the American nation deeming the Muslim nation or the Arab nation to be at odds with “Americanism,”  how can I really be an American, if I am not accepted by that nation? But what if we, McAdoo and myself, truly believe ourselves to be part of those nations, could that be enough?

And what about this idea of conflicting nations? Is there a such thing, and if so who creates them and where do they exist? In the individual’s mind? In social constructs and institutions? Or both?

Chris Phillibert "Women and womanhood" (5)

I was initially at a crossroads when it came to approaching how to answer question five. To me, the state of "women" versus the state of "womanhood" are two different questions. In my mind the first question refers to how women are viewed in society or what a woman's role in society is. In contrast the second question refers to the characteristics and traits that make up a typical woman or what it means to be a woman. It seems to me as if women are in a sort of quandary of identity. On the one hand they have all of these expectations from society about doing what is expected of them and fulfilling traditional definitions of womanhood like child-rearing. On the other hand, women feel a pressure to break out of the mold society has created for them in order to prove that womanhood is not just about fulfilling traditional obligations and customs but also carving out your own identity that may very well lie outside the confines of traditional womanhood.

 In "La Noire de...", Diouana illustrates what is expected from her as a woman: do what you're told, maintain subservience, be seen and not heard. The film goes on to illustrate that traditionally, even if you have grievances as a woman, proper custom is to hold them in and not make them known. In "Can the Subaltern Speak", Spivak argues that the subaltern have no way to voice their problems or troubles besides through violence or drastic action. This displays that for some, womanhood is about maintaining traditional roles and meeting traditional obligations. However, for others womanhood is about breaking out of that traditional role. Later in the film the viewer is shown that Diouana creates her own expression of womanhood by rejecting the traditional roles of cooking and cleaning that were thrust upon her. Spivak would say that Diouana, living as a subaltern in the household of the French family, had no way to protest her grievances in a way that she believed would have made a difference. With this scenario, Spivak would say that Diouana ends her life as a protest against the owners of the house who had oppressed her. While I agree with this synopsis, I would like to add that by ending her own life, Diouana shows that womanhood is also about breaking free from traditional roles that patriarchal society would like to see woman put into. In Twilight: Los Angeles, Anna Deavere Smith also creates her own definition of womanhood. Through Twilight: Los Angeles Smith shows her own forms of protest about the Los Angeles riots through portrayals of different characters. Instead of keeping her grievances to herself as a traditional woman, she makes her cause known through public art form.

Through this question I've thought about how it's possible that womanhood today is as much about breaking traditional roles and barriers as it is about keeping them. Then again, traditional roles for women are only traditional because those roles are once what womanhood was. Maybe the fact that womanhood is about breaking barriers means that we're in a time of transition. Hopefully, womanhood will mean something different to every woman and will be a personal construct and identity for each woman instead of being a standardized role.

Clarissa Blanco Blog #4: American Me

           Have you ever asked someone where they're from? As in their ethnicity? And they smirk and tell you "I'm an American". And you look at them, slightly confused and ask again "No, I mean...where is your family from?" And, yet again they look at you very weirdly and reply, in an even louder/more serious tone "AMERICA!"? There has been one too many times that I've come across an individual, and I am so intrigued by their facial/bodily characteristics or accent, even, that I've asked them where they are from and they lack the pride others have in telling of the country of their ancestry. I've never understood this. If your family is Chilean, why not say from Chile? Or if you're ancestry is from Ireland, why not say Irish? Much too often do people seem embarrassed of where they are from, and I  never understood why.
           Though I was born in America, I have never said I'm "American" or, "Dominican-American" even, and while it is true that I AM American also, I feel that it's pretty obvious that I am also American along with my ethnicity. I'm proud to say that I am Dominican. I feel like this idea is something that Anderson was trying to express in Chapter 4 of Imagined Communities. "The fact that early Mexican nationalists wrote of themselves as nosotros los Americanos ("we, the Americans") and of their country as nuestra America ("our America") ...."(p.62) is particularly a very interesting line to me because it displays much of how nationalists in our country express their nationalism. The Spanish-Americans of the 1600-1800s failed to see that people in other cities/towns such as Buenos Aires, Mexico City, or Bogota were not only also Spanish but also AMERICAN as well. I feel like the concept of imagined communities is becoming much more clear as the chapters unravel, bringing out alot of points that tie into the theme of these communities. The concept that I found most surprising was that people in their own communities don't regard what happens in other communities, that they are/can be connected, as something that pertains or relates to their own. We create bubbles in the spirit of "American-ness" that cause us to be very ignorant to the fact that this is a shared country. For me, what makes one American is living in America. Whether or not you believe in the ideals of its government, like its geographical features, or even like its people, we are all American and share "American-ness". Now, the rights and power we hold comes from having been lucky enough to be considered American. Rather than saying "I'm American, so I vote", we have the ability to say "I can vote BECAUSE I'm American". It's important to remember that who we are is unique to our own characteristics and personalities, and while our country has an influence on our character it does not have an influence on our forma de ser (way of being).
         When Anderson mentions "the writings of Rousseau and Herder that say that "climate and ecology had a constitutive impact on culture and character" (p.60)", it hits me that the creoles had to suffer much more greatly than the metropoles just because of where they were located/born despite their sharing the same ancestry! This is what happens when our nationalistic viewpoints surpass our recognition of humanity. I am American because I live here. I was born in America. But my family is Spanish. We speak Spanish. Oftentimes rice is a main part of our meals at home. We listen and dance to bachata and merengue. And we still have the opportunity to be as successful as our neighbors from Africa America who have the same work ethic. We both still celebrate the 4th of July, and work 9-5's, but we stay true to the qualities that make us who we are as individuals, aside from where we came from or are currently living.

Jillian Turner Blog #5: Surrender to Your True Identity

In her presentation, Dr. My Haley stressed the importance of surrender. She said "surrender and find yourself." This is something that spoke to me in regard to what we have been discussing in class. Identity is a word that keeps coming to mind through our readings and discussions in class.

Dr. Haley's presentation reminded me of a Sunday in church. The way she spoke and told her stories compared to a Baptist Sunday service. She touched on cultural issues such as the family dynamic formed in a neighborhood and even race. Her presentation was highly relatable and intriguing as she was so humble, despite having been so successful. I also appreciated the time we took in class to familiarize ourselves with some of the scenes from Roots.

In Anderson, Chapter 3 particularly interested me in the focus on language. He states "the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community" (Anderson 71). Now, this is a mouthful, I know. But as I unpack such a statement, I can't help but think that Anderson is drawing attention to the change in our language today. With this "fatal diversity of language" comes a "new form of imagined community." I must then ask, is this a good or bad thing? Today, the word diversity comes with all sorts of positive connotations. But, in language, is it a good thing? Or does the diversity of language simply create barriers between groups of people?

So, I ask, who are we? Dr. Haley profoundly said "if you don't know who you are, you're like a blank piece of paper. Anyone can write on you." This, of course, could mean many different things. Are we defined by our name like the scene in Roots where Kunta refused to be called Toby? Are we defined by the nation in which we live? Are we defined by the language we speak? By the clothes we wear? 

How can we find our true identity?

John Muller Blog 4 Race in Culture

In last weeks lecture we discussed “black face” minstrelsy and its negative connotations. However, we also saw how a black performing group used a lot of these stereotypical performances for social progression. These performances bring up mixed emotions because they were somewhat stereotyping black people, however they were doing things black people were never allowed to do at the time. I think the biggest question is where does these kind of performances cross the line. I think at some point the negatives outweigh the positives if the only way a person is getting ahead is by demeaning his or her culture. 

Although, there is harm that can be done demeaning a race in popular culture, it can also be used to call attention to issues and injustices in society. I think a good example where the line is blurred is with a show like The Chappele Show. A lot of the segments in the show are dealing with and making fun of black culture and also stereotypes. I think a lot of the acts in The Chapelle Show are portraying black stereotypes, however where I think Dave Chapelle differs is that he is trying to portray just how ridiculous a lot of the stereotypes people have is. Most people who watch The Chapelle Show are not laughing directly at these stereotypes but at how ridiculous they are and I think this helps call attention to something that needs to be changed.

People using their own race as a source of comedy have been around for hundreds of years. Whether it be someone using stereotypes in theatre to gain a social status previously unreachable, or calling attention to social injustices it has always been a blurry line. A lot of the time these type of things help create stereotypes and racism however they can be used strategically for good. The most important question that has to be asked is how can we help unblur these lines and to help use these performances to remove racism not promote it.