blog #6 rachel choi

Struggle of power over people is a recurring theme we see in historical and current events.  New forms of power generate every day but on the wide-scale basis, these emerging forms are seen as threatening.  The one who feels threatened develops a strategy in which they try to retain and exercise control.  In chapter 6, Anderson shares the idea of official nationalism as "an anticipatory strategy adopted by dominant groups which are threatened with marginalization or exclusion from an emerging nationally-imagined community" (Anderson, 101).

Anderson’s example was of King Wachirawut of Siam who employed strategies including education reform, militarism and rewriting of history (101).  Official nationalism is a response from power groups who feel threatened with exclusion from popular imagined communities.   It is a conscious self-protective policy in which the dominant group uses an anticipatory strategy to foresee emerging threats to it’s political interests and react accordingly.

“Amigo” shed perspective onto deeper aspects of colonization regarding diverse culture, language and the battle of authority.  I thought that language played the most obvious role in showing the differences between the group and the soldiers.  Though the friar was the only one who could translate, he was not the only form of communication used.  This goes to show that though language is needed for wide-spread purposes, communication has different outlets such as body language as shown between the interest of the girl and the soldier.  Language ultimately shapes an imagined community and it’s particular culture.  The American soldiers experienced a new culture in which they were supposed to be exercising control over.  They ended up participating in cultural events but sadly this ended abruptly as a higher authority took over control of the village.  I would have liked to see how the soldiers would have assimilated into the new culture without interruption which led me to the question: where does power truly develop from?  Isn’t power ultimately imagined just like communities?

The most apparent anticipatory strategies to me are found within the U.S regarding immigration. 

Legal citizenship is sought by many and is often related to immigration and political status.  For Asian Americans, citizenship is central to the politics of immigration, exclusion, inclusion, and community activism ( Fujiwara, 25).  Citizenship as legal status or membership into a particular community takes effort and time and depends on the desired society’s laws and regulations concerning the positioning of immigrants within social entitlements.  Coinciding with this “Age of migration” we see an ”age of nationalism” in which politics shape policies regarding immigration.  

We can see the influence of events on shaping the nation’s opinions and policies towards immigration as seen after September 11 attacks in the favors of decreasing legal immigration.  Currently, polls conducted show an increasing amount of Americans who believe that immigration is good for the country.  The Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the U.S. Patriot Act are both examples of retaliations which resulted in tighter requirements and more restrictions for immigrants.   Historically, immigration has been based on family-based reunification, employment based admission and refugee protection.  The current annual number for number of legal immigrants allowed is set at  675,000 immigrants.  The topic continues to sit on the nation’s agenda next to gun-control with the ability to affect the lives of 11 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S.  Our nation is founded on the idea of a melting pot yet there are still opposing forces and anti-immigrant sentiments on the rise.  According to Anderson’s definition of official nationalism, the threat in this case consists of an emerging majority of people of color, which may ultimately lead to a redefining of American multi-culturalism (Fujiwara, 25).  Factors such as historical moment and current political conditions will ultimately affect the national interest behind immigration control as opposed to just the workings of interest groups.

Fujiwara, Lynn. Mothers without Citizenship: Asian Immigrant Families and the Consequences of 

Welfare Reform. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2008. Print.

Laura Menzel Blog #6: Can you hear me now? Communication and film

The importance of language as both a unifying and divisive agent is a common theme in Anderson's Imagined Communities.  Vernacular language served to unify citizens of a particular imagined community and separate them from other nation-states.  The rise of the vernacular as languages-of-state spread "the conviction that languages ... were the property of quite specific groups - daily speakers and readers - and moveover that these groups, imagined as communities, were entitled to their autonomous place in a fraternity of equals" (Anderson, 84).  Language - the ability to communicate at all - is a tangible divisor or unifier.  After all, it is extremely difficult to build trust with someone you cannot understand.

Language plays an important role in the film, Amigo.  There is a multitude of languages spoken in the film, including English, Spanish, Tagalog, Chinese, and Latin.  Although many period dramas opt for English to be spoken with whatever accent of the region the film is set in, Sayles opts for the authentic languages to be spoken and translated for the audience by subtitles.  This makes the barrier between the Filipinos and the Americans, Filipinos and Chinese, and Americans and Chinese even more tangible.  The priest is the only character who can speak both Tagalog and English to communicate between the villagers and the American soldiers.  The Chinese characters are completely isolated.  There is no one to speak for them.  Even though the village is unjustly occupied, the atrocities the Chinese suffer from both sides are far worse.

The language barrier was also seen in the relationship between the young American soldier and the village girl.  Neither character is able to understand what the other is saying, and yet the boy develops a crush on the girl.  The audience might be expecting a Romeo-and-Juliet-type romance that somehow survives against all odds, but this relationship is much more realistic.  The audience watches the soldier gushing at the girl while on guard, and as he does, a rebel soldier slips through the barbed wire.  There is one tender moment between the two she she accepts the gift of a necklace, but their next encounter is more sobering.  The girl brings the soldier soup after he has been paralyzed, and he turns away.  It seems even this somewhat promising relationship between two people of different cultures will not survive.

It is important to note who the directed audience for Amigo is.  The film is not for the average American moviegoer or for the oppressed subaltern.  It is directed toward a smaller subset of the population who watch small independent films.  The film poses some poignant questions on the events of the Philippine-American War, including relationships between men and women and relationship between people of different cultures.  The film was not designed to convince the subaltern to rise up but to enlighten those who were outside the conflict.  As Spivak has shown, the subaltern have no voice.  But, can others speak for them?

Ashley Murphy, Blog 6

It seems ironic that a dominant group may be marginalized or excluded from an imagined community, but this is the case in many nations. Dominant groups must fight to institutionalize their beliefs and customs and gain power. We have discussed in class how groups invade countries and colonize not only land and resources, but also the minds and thoughts of natives living there.

The most striking example of this in our recent movie viewings was Amigo. I was unfamiliar with the Spanish-American War that also took place in the Philippines, as well as the history that preceded the American invasion of the islands.  Language plays a large role in shaping culture because it gives people a way to express themselves. The Spanish tried to assimilate the Filipinos by converting their language and transforming their dialect. Although Benedict talks about the spread of print capitalism in shaping a nation, I think that language is also a very important way to cultivate strong sentiments, negative or positive. If a group is oppressed, they are going to try to hold on to their values. The Spanish stripped the Filipinos of their identity before Americans arrived to try to take hold of any dignity that was left.

This leads me to ask the question: how can a minority dominant a much larger majority? We saw examples of this in the Roots clip - with all the slaves standing and watching at Toby was whipped while there was only several white men. What causes rebellion and is a rebellion a way for a subaltern to truly speak?

Brittany Liu's Blog #6 Power Over Heart And Mind

In Anderson's Imagined Communities, chapter six addresses the strong actions taken for nationalism and power.  The threat of the exclusive emerging community causes one to implement policies to insure  a homogeneous mind and heart of nationalism.  Specifically, Anderson talks about the Siam leader Wachirawut.  His father was the reason for the new Chinese immigrants, but unfortunately they did not make the best welcome.  Wachirawut's "anti-Chinese stance" is slightly justified after Chinese merchant's held strikes (Anderson 100).  A strike itself is a reminder of the power of masses or should I say communities.  Wachirawut's strong notion for official nationalism grew from the disruption of another community.  He implements "state-controlled primary education, state-organized propaganda" and much more in order to preserve his own nationalist image.  This manipulation is truly to feed his hunger for power.

I think the power struggle is also seen in the film Amigo.  When the American troops invade the village, one might think the village would be the ones subjected to conformism, but it is actually the Americans who are influenced by native culture.  The Americans might have the power through oppression, but as they adapt to their culture, the natives start to gain the power of the heart over the Americans.  Even one of the young American soldiers forms a crush on one of the native girls.  Some of the men are especially fond of their alcohol.  The American's power and their semi-assimilation into the country is evident during the celebration scene.  The lieutenant is in a heightened chair, but he is also integrated with the natives.  I think the battle for power is between the heart and mind because the Americans mentally hold the power, but the natives influence the power within their hearts.

I think similar to Wachirawut, the Americans are intimated by the amount of power a mass or community can possess.  Most of the frames within the film show the mass of people living within the village.  Even when there is dialogue between two characters, natives are always crossing in the background.  The community is an integral part of the mise en scene of the frames representing their power in numbers.  I think this illustrates the American's constant reminder of the natives threatening power over them.  In addition, the film's music is mostly native music.  Music is something that touches the heart and as it sounds throughout the film, the Americans are affected by it more and more as they live and interact with their enemy.  In Imagined Communities and the film Amigo, the threat of diversity increases the need for power over those who are different.

Tatiana Bull - Blog 6 Amigo

   The movie "Amigo" has been my favorite movie we have seen so far.  The head of the village is torn between being the "amigo" of the new American colonizers and the Philippine rebels.  Rather than digging into a character-driven narrative and allowing the resonances to flow naturally from it, the director seemed to begin with a set of inferences to modern American imperialism and work backwards.  He sort of  set up a question for the viewers of what is morally right during wartime; instead of  focusing on the human composure of a vastly complicated historical, political, and emotional scenario, he draws back to the bigger the picture and abandons dramatic tension for an observation that contains the general truth. 
    Rafael kind of fades into a powerless position once his village is under attack. But he wins the trust of troop leader Compton which was difficult to maintain because as the American occupation policy got tougher, friendship didn't really have a place in war; so it was hard for him to keep peace. However, in my eyes, he was honestly a true hero because he maintained his composure and stayed loyal to his neighbors.  It was easy to see that he was doing the best he could to keep his loved ones safe.
   I also found it interesting how the director decided to keep a language barrier between one of the American soldiers and a village girl because that was definitely a rare choice but I'm sure he did so for dramatic realism.  Normally in movies, the language barrier is randomly broken all of a sudden in ways that don't make sense.  However it make sense over all to display the nervous vulnerability that gives a human dimension to the loneliness on all sides of an active conflict.  Speaking of language barriers, even though there is a barrier between the lieutenant and Rafael they both share this hate for war and violence because they believe that its injustifiable at heart. 

Rachel Fugate Blog #6 The Reconciling Movement

The United Methodist Church

I am a member of the United Methodist church. I have been since I was born and I plan to be for a long time, but there has been a debate recently within the church that has cause a major issue. Homosexuality and Christianity have been clashing over the years to the point that new religious sections have been formed to create space for the emergence of homosexual Christians. Specifically in my case I have moved from a church that does not accept LBGTQ people to one that is open to all, not just when it comes to sexuality, but also race, gender, or religious affiliation.

Reconciling Ministries

The main body of the United Methodist Church was founded on white protestant males who owned land. This trend continues today however many strides have been made towards diversity. Our bishop for the Williamsburg and surrounding regions is Korean. There is a female bishop in a district adjacent to us. This is all well and good but still the dominant group is white straight men of the more conservative nature. There is a movement in the United Methodist Church called the Reconciling Ministries. As United Methodist Church doctrine stands right now, homosexuality is not conducive to the Christian lifestyle, as stated in the Book of Discipline. Reconciling Ministries is a movement to change this rule and open the doors of Christianity to LGBTQ peoples.

Last year the General Conference, which is the governing body of the United Methodist Church and represents the entirety of the church around the world, met to discuss our Book of Discipline and the church as a whole, as they do every four year. At this conference it was brought to a vote that the doctrine be changed. Reconciling Ministries had made major strides within the churches themselves, finding that many Methodist Churches and conferences were already accepting of LGBTQ people, but it is still not in our doctrine. In some areas it has become a major issue concerning those who can be married in UM churches as well as who can become clergy in the church. When brought to a vote Reconciling Ministries and many other church districts including the Wesley Foundation here on campus were said to find that the conservative vote was still just high enough to keep the doctrine as it is.

Reconciling Ministries is changing the church from the inside and working its way to the outside. Conservatives within the church are moving to the back, though they were once the dominant group. Many of the decision made at the conference were used to try and keep the charge towards LGBTQ acceptance at bay within the church. However, it is becoming increasingly evident that the church is moving away from this dominant group and they know it.

I know this isn’t something that we have seen or talked about in class, but it really just jumped out at me when I read this question. I would love to hear your all’s thoughts on this.

Kadijah Webster; Blog 6: Threaten Communities

This week, we viewed Amigo and witnesses how American troops invaded  communities during the Filipino-American War.  Soldiers came in and stripped these communities of their resources, leaving them destined to failure after the troops were to leave.  They were no longer able to self-sustain and left to depend on the Americans for their basic needs.  In the film, we also witnessed that because the people were different from Americans, there was also an heavy influence of racism.  The fact that they were a darker than the soldiers and spoke a different language created a barrier between the groups and seemed to make it easier for these men to ruin the homes that people that spent their entire lives creating.
Traveling overseas or across borders isn't necessarily the only way that a community can be "invaded."  Last semester, I studied the plays of August Wilson.  The final play we read, Radio Gulf, gives a clear example of how communities can be destroyed by their own neighbors.  Harmond Wilkes, who was running for mayor, was also preparing for the Hill District to be completely renovated.  The people around this part of town looked down upon it because it was not as wealthy the members of this community were struggling to get by on a day to day basis.  Going into tearing down the Hill District, Wilkes did not understand the significance of what he was planning to do.  Because his family was able to get out of the district and live successful lives, he paid no attention to how the actual members of this community would be affected.
I believe that this is why people can be so ignorant and disrespectful of interrupting another's community.  No one takes the time to consider how it would affect anyone but themselves.  They should understand that just because someone may be different from them, this doesn't mean that they don't deserve to live peacefully just as they have done in their homes before.  It is so easy for a group to destroy another's harmony because they are selfish.  Not until everyone can understand that different people, regardless of their practices, live their lives just a they do within their homes, will they all understand that they are in every way wrong.  They must ask themselves, how would they feel if the tables were turned.

Jillian Turner Blog # 7: Violence Strikes Again

In both "Who Killed Vincent Chin" and "Amigo," I can't help but say that violence is a dominant trait of American culture. Miscarriage of justice after another and we don't seem to learn from our mistakes... how frustrating!

In "Who Killed Vincent Chin," I was struck by the two foils of women characters. On one hand Mrs. Chin was portrayed as a strong women who fearlessly fought for justice after her son was brutally murdered. On the other, however, I saw in Mrs. Ebens a woman who almost senselessly stood by her husband. Yes, they had been married for years and her loyalty should be honored BUT at some point something inside me snapped. I lost respect for her because she couldn't see that her husband beat a man to death with a baseball bat. I personally thought that the weapon alone should have been enough to convict Roy Ebens. Chin had no weapon and Ebens did. As the film continued, however, and jury members were interviewed, I was irritated by the repeated concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt." This seemingly helpful phrase has debunked slam-dunk court cases since day one. Casey Antony, OJ Simpson, Roy Ebens. All seemingly guilty but, because of a formality, walked free from murder. This simple phrase led to the debauchery that became Chin's case as it was later tried as a civil rights case.

Amigo also raised questions for me regarding Americans and inherent violence. Ever since the days of manifest destiny, Americans have believed it was their right to rule what they believed were inferior races... As it turns out, that mean everyone who wasn't of European decent. We see such motifs in "Amigo." I personally enjoyed this movie very much, never having learned much about the history of the Philippines or the Spanish-American War. I felt that the film portrayed many different angles: Amigo, the insurgents, the Americans, and of course the Priest. I thought it was interesting how, before he was hanged, Amigo admitted to his wife that, regardless of what he could have done, he would have been executed anyways. I still can't decide if this is morbid or brilliantly profound because he was absolutely right. As we discussed in class, I enjoyed watching as over time, the Americans developed ties with the natives and became personally invested. I thought that this gave a different perspective to something that I had previously written off as classic American aggression. Finally, I thought the priest played a key role in the film. Often shady, I honestly couldn't place his angle in the story. What were his motivations? I also found it interesting that, towards the end, the women of the village were seen repeating "mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa" which is a Latin phrase of lament http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/mea-culpa.html . This line is also featured in the Jimmy Buffett song "Fruitcakes" (Funfact!)

In Mark Sawyer's article on Racial Politics in Multiethnic America, he discusses public opinion on race. He admits that much of the research as of today is "focused predominantly on white attitudes about blacks" (Sawyer 529). I thought this was particularly interesting because neither film involved tensions between blacks and whites but rather exposed tensions with people of Asian decent. It was an interesting change in the class, I will admit. Racism against people of Asian decent is something that is often omitted from school curriculums. Who hasn't heard of Rodney King?! But no one at the end of the "Who Killed Vincent Chin?" film had even heard of him before. Here again, we see an American injustice. It was not just African Americans that were oppressed by the Europeans but also Native Americans, Asians, Philippines, and countless other ethnicities. Later in the article, Sawyer states that, today, "Blacks and Latinos share support for affirmative action" (Sawyer 529). Needless to say there seems to be a disconnect here.

Anderson affords yet another prospective. In Chapter 4 on Creole Pioneers, he discusses the affect of newspapers in American development. I interpreted his discussion on newspapers similarly to our class discussion on bias in both the Vincent Chin and Amigo films. According to Anderson, early newspapers contained, along with "news about the metropole,"and "commercial news" (Anderson 89). I could imagine that such a newspaper would produce similar bias to what we saw in the two films. So I must ask, what is the full impact of bias? Media and otherwise...