Tenille Jensen Blog 7

Like many countries, America has its own unique timeline of historical experiences that make it different from any other geographical location. Within that time line of American history, individual members in society have unique experience of that lived history over the course of generations and across gender and race. What really spoke to me was Andersons take on education and its role in creating the foundations for nationalism. Anderson states that nationalism ideology is instilled “through the mass media, the educational system, administrative regulations…” which creates commonalities across members of societies despite their differences. As simple as this concept seems, I had never thought about these simple components (that drive a nation-state) as central modern day educational mechanisms used to connect people to one another and the land.

A perfect example of building nationalism through education in Anderson’s chapter was Indonesia, a country comprised of hundreds of islands, ethnicities, languages, and religions. Despite such diversity, education has allowed this nations to create a sense of unity through a connected history which began in the government schools. Anderson states: “The government schools formed a colossal, highly rationalized, tightly centralized hierarch, structurally analogous to the state bureaucracy itself. Uniformed textbooks, standardized diplomas and teaching certificates, a strictly regulated gradation of age-groups, classes and instructional materials, in themselves created a self contained, coherent universe of experience. But no less important was the hierarchy’s geography.” I relate this to my elementary days when we would study American history. Although we all came from very different backgrounds, it gave my peers and I a better sense of why we would pledged allegiance to the American flag every morning. 

Similar to Indonesia, America is comprised of many distinct geographic locations. Although we are all tied to one large continent, we are separated by states lines, composed of varying customs, traditions, and accents. Through the use of education, we have created a sense of connectedness which has since been derived from a commonality of shared history, defined through our moments of nation state building during our colonial period. Education is key in created shared experiences over time.

Blog 7 Tonisha Spratte

Blog 7:  Nationalism For Who?

In reading Jonno’s blog, I was stuck with a question.  He mentioned something about how American Nationalism came to be Euro-centric.  Which made me think, why would the creole put the Englishman at the top of the hierarchy before themselves?  Why were those from England revered?  Why would the people born in America allow themselves to be seen as somewhat of a “second-rate” citizen?  I think it’s the power of influence.  Like we were talking about in class, we listen to authority, (of course within a certain context) but we are eager to do what we are told.  So, these people were told to believe that the European’s were what they should to aspire to be.  One example is in Amigo, the women in the baryo could be said to have been trying to emulate the priest.  He was an authority figure and one that the women wanted to be closer to and more like.  So even religion is a means by which those in power influence and try to control the dominated people.  This reminds me of black women and their hair.  Some people would say that black women do not like their hair and that they try to make it more like other races’ hair by using relaxers and finding other methods of straightening their hair.  This was exemplified in The Colored Museum, in the scene where the woman was going on a date to break up with her boyfriend.  She had to choose which wig she wanted to wear, a straight wig or an afro, one representing the tamed African American woman and the other is most associated with Black pride.  The most important detail, but it wasn’t emphasized was the fact that it was mentioned in the film that she was bald because she had processed her own hair to the point where it had just all fell out.  So, if she wouldn’t have tried to change herself every time the wind blew, maybe she would have some hair.  This in turn is also similar, but the latter to a lesser extent, to some people over in Asiatic (see if that’s a real word) countries.  It is popular for Asians to get surgery on their eyes in order to make them look more like that of the rest of the world.  Why are these people trying to change themselves?  Why do they, black women, Asians, and the creole Americans, think that they aren’t every bit as good as or as beautiful as those in power?  Why do they feel they have to emulate another group of people?  Is it because they are purposely brainwashed by those in power? (I think that may be the case for early American creoles)  Or is it because this is what they see in the media, they see these people living lives that they think are appealing and worth emulation.  Anderson does mention that the media, the school, and administrative regulations are the ways in which commonalities are created.

I believe several factors influence why the natives and creoles kept the colonizing power at the head of the national hierarchy, one being the strategic spread of nationalism by the colonizers through the schools, the other being the mistreatment and inadequate employment available for these people, and the other being the belief that assimilation into these groups is the best way to uplift one’s self.  Anderson says that this sensation of nationalism was mainly spread to the youth through the newly popularized schooling that the children were now receiving.  The school system was used to promote nationalism.  He goes on to talk about how what they were called, effected them as well, and even though they may have come from different places and spoke different languages they were all called the same thing which was, of course, inferior to the colonizing power.  This, in turn, leads me to my next point of the treatment received from those in power is another reason for the feeling of inferiority.  Anderson notes that the importance of modern knowledge and education increased in the early 20^th century and the phenomenon of educated and unemployed had already begun.  These people, knowing that they were smart, educated, just as well qualified for various positions and jobs, yet not getting any job, or at least not anything that is related to what they were educated in, may have a drop in self-esteem over time.  Rejection from a job or occupation, just to see it go to someone else, someone who is of the same social group as the people who hold all the power has the effect of making someone feel inferior.  Another reason they may want to seem, whether in appearance or any other aspect, like they are part of the, for lack of a better term, “elite”, those who are in power, is because they also want to share in this power.  They want to make it seem like they are one of them, like they belong or that they aren’t much different than the people in power in society.  So, in changing their appearance, they believe they are making it much easier for them to ease into the “elite” inner circle.

The feeling that the people in power are the elite in society is understandable for many reasons.  Nationalism was taught through the schools to the youth in society, the natives and Non-Europeans were treated inferiorly, and in order to get involved with those in power the subaltern would try to change their appearance in order to be associated with those in power.  All of these reasons, and I am sure that there are many more, came together in order to ensure that the colonizing power is at the top of the country’s nationalism totem pole. 

Victoria Olayiwola Blog #7: Such grace, such restraint and such character in the face of such cruelty. American traits? Who knows!

In class we learnt about a woman who had a “clear vision”. Maya Lin, a young student at Yale entered a competition to create a monument befitting those who lost their lives in the Vietnam War. She, through her construction, wanted relatives and the general public to accept and admit the pain; she felt through such acceptance and admittance the process of healing can begin and not only begin, but flourish. 

Lin seeks to question central questions all humans ask themselves such as how does man deal with death? Losses? And sacrifices? She through her artwork attempts to combat the difficulty in answering these questions through the medium of art-by providing a fitting monument where all can come to terms with their loss, “for death in the end is a private and quite matter”.  

But what stuck out the most for me was, Lin, in the face of great anger at her artwork, uncharacteristically showed such grace, courage, restraint, wisdom and strength. Such qualities are hard to find in adults not even to talk of 18/19 year olds. Lin, saw her project on till the very end. She refused to drop her purpose, she refused to pander to the demands of those who hated her monument. Rather she confidently chose to fight defiantly for the integrity of her work and in the end her piece was vindicated. 

   

Lin was presented with flowers and told by one of her supporters, a representative of the veterans of the Vietnam War, that “numbers are numbers but when we look at the names chiseled in stone, it is a constant reminder of the high price of freedom”. What greater vindication could Lin have wanted?

But my question is how many of us can boldly say that in the face of such trials and tribulations we will keep our nerve? That we will show so such grace, such character, such maturity until we are vindicated- that is if we are ever vindicated? Because I can’t. I just know I can’t keep my cool like the way she did. Whether that be when I was 18 or even now. That is why her life will always remain an inspiration to me. Really, it should be an inspiration to us all.

In class we also focused on a book review on Acemoglu and Robinson book "Why Nations Fail". In it the authors argue that nations thrive when political and economic institutions are developed. They

argue that nations fail when political and economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few. And so they conclude that power should not be held in the hands of the few because such an act does not benefit the nation as a whole. 

Besides this the authors argue that expansive political and economic institutions-that involve all segments of a community-lead to the desire and incentive to innovate and thus foster the ability for sustainable growth. 

Friedman (the author of the book review) argues that China needs to make a transition because although under its current authoritarian government China continues to grow, it will reach a point where it cannot grow any longer-a point where sustainable growth is unachievable-and that is because innovation is non-existent. Unfortunately nobody can challenge China's state company-not even a 20 year old whizkid-and thereby increase competition. Given that nobody can challenge China's state entities there is provided no incentive to innovate, just fear and a whole bunch of deterrents. 

For a sustainable economy only comes by providing creativity and through the liquidation of political and economic power. 

And so I turn my attention to America. America, land of the free and the brave. America, the beacon of liberty and the torch bearer of freedoms both economic and political. America, America.

America is a nation that has benefited from sustainable economic growth because it is a nation that has strove to provide its citizens with both the political and economic freedoms it so desires. Although some demand more and vent their anger via protest such as the Occupy Wall Street: we are the 99% protest of 2011/12, America in comparison to other nations has dispersed much power, both political (through its system of democracy) and economic (through its free market/liberal laissez-faire system, which has led to competition between companies, more consumer choice and cheaper good quality products). Because of this many American are obligated to their state and feel some kind of an unquestionable allegiance to it.

  

And I think this is what makes Americans, American: their freedoms, their liberties, their unquestionable loyalty to their state, and their desire to make their way up the socioeconomic scale-ideals derived from the American Dream complex. There is also an element of creativity and choice, (two things many in the world are not opportuned to have) many have for so long fought for their rights and freedoms (which were denied for one reason or another whether that be because of race, sexual orientation or gender) and now that they have it, they have every desire to use it to their advantage. 

In Chapter 7 of Imagined Communities, Anderson focuses on the “Last Wave” of nationalism, which was the transformation from colonial-states to nation state post World War I for most European States and Post World II for the colonized states of Africa and Asia.

Three factors fostered this change:

a) the increase in physical mobility movement (the creation of railways, steamships and in the last century, the creation of motor transport and aviation.) 

 b) an increase in bureaucracy (“the colonial state, and, somewhat later, corporate capital, needed armies of clerks, who to be useful had to be bilingual, capable of mediating linguistically between metropolitan nation and colonized people.”)           

                                                                

      c) the spread of modern style education (“not only by the colonial state, but also because of the growing acceptance of the moral importance of modern knowledge even for colonized population”)                                          

“It was a response to the new-style global imperialism made possible by the achievements of industrial capitalism. The paradox of official nationalism was that it brought the idea of ''national histories'' into the consciousness of the colonized.”[1]

Anderson also dwells on the importance of bilingualism. However bilingualism was not the only important thing useful in creating a “national consciousness”. The proliferation of print-capitalism was also essential. Print capitalism and other forms of media helped the general public grasp a greater meaning of the words nationalism, national identity and national political community. 

America, no different from other colonized states, became a nation state because of the three factors explained above [increase in physical mobility, increase in bureaucracy and a modern style education] and the creation of an industrial capitalism which cemented its position as a nation and provided it with the autonomy it sought from the British. It could stand on its two feet because it had a strong economic backbone. But also print capitalism played its role in facilitating and circulating the idea of independence and “Americaness” to the general public. And such ideologies were well received.

---

[1] http://ssr1.uchicago.edu/PRELIMS/Culture/cumisc1.html

 

What makes me British? I guess I feel British because I feel a part of Britain's long and rich history. I guess I feel British because I like to partake in British festivities, British idiosyncrasies and British nuances. I guess I feel British because I get the British sense of humor and I enjoy and have taken on board some British characteristics-our political incorrectness, our love of tea and our love of edgy comedy. But it is a good question. I have never had to question my Britishness and what makes me British. I guess it is because I was born and raised in Britain, and so I have had no reason to question my background but being in America, I see the difference and the similarities. And I constantly question my background and how events/complex situations I have created here would be received at home. I must also point out that I am one of many that benefits from a hybrid of cultures. Given that I am both British and African, my Britishness has informed and complemented my Afrincan-ness and vice-versa. I am very much grounded in African culture, courtesy of my parents-the need to be respectful, show grace and discipline-as much as I have grounded myself in British culture.

 



 

I guess my leading question is what makes us who we are? Our background? Our heritage? Our Nation-State? Our Faith? Or is it a mesh of all these things? Food for thought.

Blog 6 John Wang

A current case of anticipatory strategy adopted by dominant groups I can speak of exists in the gym community. The gym world is sectioned off into a spectrum from those who exercise for performance reasons and those who exercise for cosmetic reasons. In the performance category you will find your mainstream sport athletes, power lifters, Olympic weightlifters, and strong men. In the cosmetic category you will find bodybuilders. All these groups of people who deal with weights have very singular goals whether it’s to lift as much weight as possible, to run faster, or to look a certain way. Recently, a strength and conditioning regime called cross fit has been sweeping across the nation. I actually lied earlier. There is a third group. It is made up of recreational gym goers that do not have an opinion of their own. They definitely want to kick ass and look good while doing it but they do not claim allegiance to anything like being a power lifter or bodybuilder. This pisses everyone else off to no end mainly because they all have different definitions of kicking ass. To a football player, it’s being the big, bad and fast, to a strong man it’s being strong as hell, and to a bodybuilder it’s getting your body to look like a V. To a cross fitter, it’s about “elite fitness” it’s about being above average in many categories but being extraordinary at none of them except at being pretty good at all of them. To the dominant group of gym folks, this is a slap in the face with a wet noodle. They spend all their days pissing blood driving towards one end goal and here come the damn cross fitters with their vibram five finger toe shoes making a bastardization of everything everybody usually does. What the dominant group doesn’t realize is that times are changing and they are the last of a dying breed. Cross fit is extremely appealing to the general public and is converting multitudes of traditional gym goers. It promises people that they will epitomize elite fitness and they will look great doing it. Well they do not explicitly say that you’ll look great but there is a huge cross fit culture, where the men and women tend to be attractive, elitist, and somewhat hipster. Yeah by the way cross fit costs a lot of money despite minimal equipment. For those of you familiar with fishing, think of it this way, you can pay a couple hundred for a surf rod and catch some huge fish when they run up or down the shore, or you can pay a couple thousand for a fly rod and a boat to catch the same fish, only smaller, with much higher potential of losing the fish, but fly fishing is sexy. Anyways, back to my point. Cross fit sells. It’s exciting, it’s new, and even better, it delivers quick results. The dominant groups can see that through cross fit, these cross fitters will never get the strength of the strongman or the physique of a bodybuilder or fitness model. To the dominant groups, it is mind blowing people who work with weights do not want what they want. However, to the cross fitters, it’s okay. In fact it’s more than okay. It’s great and they love it. Most are not in it to be the strongest, or the biggest, or the leanest. They are in it for the sake of going far beyond what they imagined their fat asses capable.  The people who are good at cross fit go on to compete at cross fit competitions. Less than a year ago cross fit sold a 50% stake for 20 million. The dominant groups can feel it breathing down their necks but most don’t want to admit it. Mainly they keep it down with the anticipatory strategy of verbal and typed communications over the internet feminizing it and calling it gay. Personally, I like to compare cross fit to a mustang with a v6 engine. Cross fit gives the directionless direction which is extremely attractive.  However, since it is not the direction of the main group, they try to tear it down. Unfortunately for them, all they can do is do it verbally because cross fit just took all their money.