John Muller Blog 6 Heirarchy and Opression

When looking at my daily life it is difficult for me to find an example of an anticipatory strategy being used on myself or somebody around me. However, after much thought I realized that I see these types of reactions on a day to day basis, particularly being a part of a sports team. Being on a team for four years in college I have seen a number of strategies put in place by the coaching staff to prevent themselves from being marginalized or excluded. Going through the displeasures of a coaching change this is particularly prominent in my case. It is not common for a team to become divided in this circumstance with some of the team wanting the training philosophy of a past coach while others wanting the philosophy brought about by a new coach, this is what led to the aforementioned measures in my case.

In the situation I described many members of the team became disgruntled about various aspects of the new coach and held team meetings to make sure everyone was on the same page. With fear of a rebellion the coaching staff would often try to break up these meetings or question members of the team about the nature of these meetings. Although these meetings were not an attempt to overthrow a coaching staff, that is precisely what the coaches feared. I can even think of an instance when a team member questioned a coach in front of the whole team only to receive a suspension from the team. Although these could be several reasons for the suspension it seemed like it was used to send a message to remind the team of the hierarchy that existed and not to question it.

The examples detailed above deal with a case that occurs in my life and many other social structures all over the world. I think the biggest question when there is a hierarchy is when are we able to question what the leader is doing? When is questioning a somebody in an authority role disrespectful verses the right thing to do.

Creative Destruction, Jessie Dzura, Blog 7

The concept of creative destruction from the Acemoglu and Robinson review strongly resonated with me. It extends beyond economies and governmental policies. In the context of the article, creative destruction refers to the idea that you cannot sustain an economy or country if you are not willing to get rid of certain aspects or ideologies in order to progress.

In terms of our class, I think creative destruction refers to a more general idea of letting go of our past selves in order to grow and learn. For me, I was incredibly skeptical coming into a class where I had to perform Native American songs, walk in a circle for long periods of time, and generally choose how involved I would be. I am normally expected to perform at my height (in the professor's idea of what performance is). I choose to be silent in this class, because the ideas of the class become a mix tape in my head rather than a learning ideology. Every activity we do transforms into a mix for the day. This class has really shown me how much I use music to express myself.

For every person I meet, I think of a song that I think best expresses their soul. For me, Glamourous Indie Rock and Roll expresses my personality to the fullest.
For your listening pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=glamorous+indie+rock+and+roll+the+killers+official+video&oq=glam&gs_l=youtube.3.0.35i39j0l3j0i3l2j0l4.2072.2747.0.3739.4.4.0.0.0.0.60.196.4.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.uNIUv-hY2f0

Ashley Murphy, Blog 7

Lately I have been contemplating how my next semester is going to be: spending it in Spain away from everyone I'm familiar with and away from familiarity. I think what I am most worried about is coming off as a "dumb American", someone who disregards the views of others and is obnoxious and abrasive. Of course, I know I'm not usually like this, but I'm worried I may unintentionally come off in this manner. Although nationalism did not begin in America perhaps, starting during the French Revolution when the idea of the nation-state was tied to inclusiveness and language, Americans have a very strong sense of the national identity.

The Post 9/11 Era has defined my generation. I can remember sitting in fourth grade reading class as my teacher wheeled a television in the room because, "we needed to see what was going on." I didn't quite comprehend what was occurring, didn't know at first this was happening in my country, what terrorism was, what Al-Qaeda was. When I returned home, things were still unclear. To this day, I can't fathom why a group of people would act on their hatred in such a way. Although this tragedy happened, it pulled us together. Not only that, it pulled the international community, as other nations sympathized with us.

In the Maya Lin documentary, she tried to portray our struggle during the Vietnam War in an objective way. She wanted every American, and I think every citizen of this world, to be able to reflect on the loss of war and how it is somewhat of an externality, affecting those that are not directly involved. Her memorial was able to emotionally affect everyone that laid eyes on it.

Nathan's Blog 7: Proooud to be an American

American's have a certain swagger. American nationalism is like caviar, its an acquired taste. People living inside the borders know it, people outside of the United States know it. American Nationalism is viewed as brash unapologetic. American's view of their nation comes from their shared common background but also through the proliferation of the american education system.

Anderson's idea that kids are instilled with nationalism. We get stories of heroic american characters, who's stories are probably much more hyped than the actual person. Kids are indoctrinated with the notion that America is the best country in the world from their first history class. American nationalism requires that its people believe whole heartedly that they are better than the "other". I imagine it is similar for all nations, but in America we don't just accept being good at one thing we expect to be the best. That belief that America is great is what is instilled in children through education, but also through myth to those outside of America.

Rachel Fugate Blog #7 American Nationalism?

Anderson speaks a lot to the role of education in the development and maintaining of nationalism in a country, whether it be nationally recognized or colonialized. And indeed American nationalism is bred in schools across the country, attesting to the theory that we, a once colonized country, and now a mixing pot of all of those cultures. Those who bring their own histories and national identities and then add them to the established identity or mold. I find it interesting that one would try to say that America has just one Nationalism, even though we know that it does. It seems that Americaness is a populace that identify to the freedom that is offered by America. They can keep their heritage, their origins, but it is important that they incorporate it into the American model of life in order to be included in the wide net cast over the nation.

I think American nationalism expects its citizens to fit into a mold or a category. We are made up of people all over the world, but they have something that makes them different and distinctly American. Be it an American education, as Anderson seems to suggest, or an American style of living, they hold a new level of identity layered on top of the one they already have. Perhaps it’s that stylized structure that we were discussing in class the other day. The education of young people at an early age reflects the sense of freedom that they should feel from being an American. Then as we grow older the structure emerges, eliminating that freedom, but creating that sense of Americaness through what is learned. We don’t feel like the freedom is taken away because structure is what we think everyone needs to have when growing up in our society. Then choices arise again, but they are Americanized choices, instilled during the structured phase. We know that each one we make will have a positive or negative outcome, and either incorporate or isolate us from the American community.

I feel like Maya Lin showed an example of how everyone in the American education system has a firm hold on what is American Nationalism. She is obviously a very American person and identifies as such with her work that she did on the memorial and her future projects. But I felt that some people tried to take away her Americaness because they were disgruntled by her other attributes. This is where the point I touched on earlier comes into play, the fact that there is not a thing as American nationalism because different socio-economic groups of Americans view the Nationalism in their own way. We like to present that American has one sense of a unified whole on what Nationalism is, but underlying that is the fact that it is truly divided and unwholistic.

Perhaps the world will agree with me. It is like the man who Anderson described, who temporarily portrayed himself as a Dutchman to show the oppression of his people, I would like to step outside as a member of the world looking at American. How would I see American Nationalism when I looked from another point of view? Would I see it the same without my American education and background? I feel that sometimes the world might see America without the glaze that is put over the eyes of the people who live there. I don’t want to offend anyone and I feel like America is a great place, but perhaps our Nationalist view of ourselves may not be what the rest of the world truly see. 

Jessie Ede Blog Seven

I think American Nationalism is very much manifested in the idea of American exceptionalism that we see in political rhetoric and discussions. Honestly, the phrase makes me think of caricatured America - white, insistent upon political and societal freedoms to a hilarious extent, belief that America is the best nation on Earth, and general bleeding of red, white, and blue for America's particular brand of democracy. Personally, I would also add the caveat of "English-speaking". Anderson disagrees and instead argues that language is a tool of inclusivity, as anyone can learn another language. However, I think that language (especially print language) is often used by dominant groups as an obstacle to power channels. Although language acquisition is always possible, fluency takes serious time and effort, as well as the resources required to take a class or purchase instructional materials.
 Language debates aside, I think that the United States expects citizens within its jurisdiction to value democracy or, perhaps more aptly, liberty. I also think there is very much a national attitude of pride, while being wary of anything that appears militaristic. Part of the national narrative of United States foreign policy is not that we engage in conflict because we are aggressive, but instead to help others fight off threats to democracy or help establish democracies in countries that lack institutions reflecting our ideal. This feeds into our global contextualization of the world, where there are the countries whose political makeup looks like ours (much of Western Europe - despite their parliamentary systems, I think most Americans view those nations as kindred) and those with inferior political institutions or oppressive systems (China, Russia, much of Africa and the Middle East). Personally, I believe this narrative is flawed as I remain unconvinced that democracy is the best style of government. I do, however, feel a bit of a self-conscious vibe from younger generations (or perhaps it is just the William and Mary crowd) when it comes to displays of American nationalism or advocacy for any sort of American exceptionalism. What does everyone else think? Do you feel that, especially in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, our generation is more likely to step back from displays of American pride or advocacy for democracy installation in other countries?

Blog Six Jessie Ede

When I read the prompt for this blog post, my mind immediately jumped to the current conflict in Malaysia that Professor Aguas mentioned in class. The recent violence between Malaysians and Filipinos in Sabah and the southern Philippines, with complicating factors thrown in by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, certainly represent a dominant group being faced with challenges by emerging communities. It may be more accurate to refer to both groups as communities with emerging political clout or fledgling political agency instead of implying a newly imagined genesis. I am also not wholly convinced that Malaysian elites fear usurpation of power or future marginalization, but given the establishment of national identities in the modern era to an extent not discussed by Anderson in Chapter 6 I think this is the most likely case where a current government and nationalism is severely threatened by other national identities. The Malay government has attempted to head off further difficulties due to impending elections, but their selection of a neutral third party state was not accepted by the Philippines.
Anticipatory strategies of suggesting diplomatic talks are fairly common in foreign policy, as gaining public relations goodwill for being willing to compromise and potentially setting the terms of the agreement are powerful incentives. It appears, though, that the added strategy of a neutral third party to increase the perception of fairness was not a winning one in this case. I am inclined to believe that anticipatory strategies to co-opt involvement by an emerging group via the legal system are the most likely to succeed, especially if an official language comes into play. In order for a group desiring continuing hegemony to be successful in their power preservation aims, establishment through accepted institutions is key. Does anyone think perhaps this is happening in the United States with pushes for English-only legislation? I suppose there are people in America who feel threatened by the changing demographic landscape of our country. This blog post prompt was honestly a bit more difficult for me to wrap my head around, so I am very interested to hear in class and read about what others made of Chapter 6 and its application to situations today.

Mayssa Chehata, Blog #7: Maya Lin and Reflection in Society

I loved the film Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision. I’d never heard the story of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial before, and I thought it was very interesting to watch the selection process for the memorial design and see the challenges that Maya and those who supported her design and her vision faced. When I read the question for this week about American Nationalism, I immediately thought back to this film, and the conflict between the veterans who supported the design and those who didn't.

While it is important to always remember that the memorial was meant to commemorate the fallen soldiers of the Vietnam War, I thought that some of the comments and angles taken by the oppositionists to the memorial were particularly noteworthy. One veteran, speaking against the design before the US Commission on Fine Arts, stated that it was meant to be a big, black scar. The veteran was very angry, and seemed to be under the impression that Maya Lin meant the design to be insulting to the veterans. However, this isn’t how I saw it at all. When he made the statement about it being a big, black scar, I was thinking well what else is the names of 57,661 fallen soldiers to America besides a scar, something that will always be a part of our history, but that can hopefully heal and we can learn from our mistakes. I was pretty surprised by the veteran’s distaste with the memorial being a “scar” (whether you agree that is what the design was or not), because wouldn’t someone who was there, who experienced the whole thing, be the first one to tell us that the Vietnam War was a perpetual scar on American history. This is absolutely not to say that the fallen and still living veterans aren’t extremely honorable citizens who should be highly respected for their (both voluntary and involuntary) sacrifices and service, but can we not recognize the wrongness of what we did, of our way, and should we not be at least a little bit ashamed, if not at least mournful, of what happened?

Another critic noted in the film was Pat Buchanan, who was said to have publicized the claim that there was a member of the selection jury who was a communist, and stressed the presence of anti-War individuals on the panel. I thought this was very revealing of the time, and the fear that was instilled in Americans about “communists,” but also the ways this fear was exploited and manipulated by the media so severely, in this case for the case of getting rid of a design for a fallen Veteran’s memorial, it is literally sickening. Also regarding the discontent of having anti-Vietnam War people as part of the design selection panel, I didn’t understand if instead they would have preferred only pro-War individuals to be involved. This way, we can continue to perpetuate the ideal that America should just raise arms whenever we have a problem with another country, even through our memorials, instead of promoting memorials and public art which looks to promote balance and peace, or at least reflection on our history, rather than simple war glorification.

This concept of reflection brings me to my final point, about the memorial itself. In this class we are trying to find our individual positions within our communities, and in this film we watch Maya Lin’s journey finding her position and what role she played within her society. I think that this idea of self-reflection, about ourselves, ourselves within our communities, and ourselves within our greater societies or nations, played a really important role in Maya Lin’s design, as it is in its current finalized form. When you visit the Vietnam Veteran’s memorial, you walked down the pathway alongside the wall with all the names inscribed, dumbfounded by the size of the thing and the endless rows of names, but every once in a while you stop to read through several names, or maybe to identify a name you recognize, and you look directly into the wall. As you read those names, if you change the focus of your eyes for a second, you see yourself staring back at you. The wall is reflective, and I think this is a crucial aspect of the design. It makes us look at all these names, and subsequently look at ourselves. First as an individual, but also, as you see the reflections of others around you on the wall as well, reflect on your society, in direct relationships to those who sacrificed their lives for our country.

I realize this was a little bit off topic but I wished we’d had more time to discuss this film and the role of art in society and imagined communities in class. I think in a society that puts art in the backdrop of what are deemed “more important” things like math and science, it’s easy to forget how important art is in our everyday lives. Even simply the layouts of our classrooms, academic buildings, and campus are crucial in determining how we interact with one another and how we feel, communicate, and exit on a daily basis. When we think about music, literature, painting, all these things, they are pivotal in helping form communities, as they reflect not only how the artist sees himself and his position within his community, but also allow that artist’s community to look at the art and reflect on their self and their own roles in their community, as Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veteran Memorial—and literally billions of other works—have done for America, and the same thing within all other nations and communities.

Grace O'Donnell Blog 7

American nationalism is predicated on democracy. In elementary school, we learn that being a good citizen is voting -- or participating in democracy. In class we talked about whether democracy is the ideal form of government. Whether or not it actually is or actually works, democracy is ideally a government of the people. American nationalism assumes the individual is important. The people have a choice, just like we had choices in class with what activities to do.   

This works within the geography of the United States. However, asserting democracy in other places shouldn't be a form of American nationalism. Democracy is effective because it is the will of the people. When it is forced, it doesn't work. This is the lesson we're learning from recent efforts. Friedman addresses some of the problems with exporting democracy, explaining that it has to come from the people and start with grassroots movements. 

Grace O'Donnell Blog 6

English is without question the most common language in the United States. Those who speak it are the dominant group. However, a lot of English speakers feel threatened when American citizens speak other languages -- especially Spanish. This is a form of racism against immigrants. Underlying this racism is a fear that those in control might lose hegemony. I guess for some people options are scary. Having the choice to "press 2 for Spanish" indicates that a decent amount of people are speaking Spanish -- despite the fact that it's still "press 1 for English."English only speakers feel threatened, despite their clear dominance in society. An anticipatory strategy they use to keep power is trying to make English the official language of the Untied States.

Mackenzie Wenner 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.

Anderson principally describes the traditional protestant northern culture which was inspired largely by Puritans throughout New England as classic “Americanness”. I believe other factors have modified what most people refer to as traditional American culture and ideals since then. The largest probably the separation of church and state and focus on the merits of industrial spirit which were somewhat later addendums to the highly religious town-hall style communities of the earliest New Englanders’ American culture. I myself derive most of what I sense to be my own American culture from my own industrial spirit and deference to the market. From an extremely young age I participated with eagerness in various forms of commerce. Undoubtedly inspired by my father’s family’s business and the entrepreneurial spirit that runs through his side of my family. I began selling bread and vegetables at the end of my driveway when I was 5 years old. When I went away to camp at twelve I paid a counselor to buy me several boxes of microwave popcorn and various other snacks which I sold at an extreme mark-up. Some time between those two ventures I bought my first share of stock, and would check the price weekly in the Sunday paper. I derive a large degree of self worth from always providing a service to a market, the value of which I am happy to collect and enjoy. I believe in many of the lofty principals of the US, a country founded on ideas, but the American individualistic, market-based system value allocution is what most tangibly resonates with me. 

Mackenzie Wenner Blog 3

Do you speak English? How does the US* configure in Anderson’s notions on the role of language and literacy/print in imagining a nation? (*You may choose another nation.)

English is the only language I have ever spoken with any amount of skill or eloquence (and even then only sparingly). In middle school I took Latin, and from an earlier age I studied German and French, both of which I continued through high school. I speak English because I grew up with it, but I had little incentive to excel in other languages I was being taught because English is the primary language of this country and extremely well known around the globe. On occasion I have traveled to Europe and Central America, and with my English and nuanced international hand gestures never had an ounce of trouble being understood. We have now in the world a set of “Super Languages” that are largely spoken by educated peoples in most of the world. I would include Spanish and French next to English on that list and Mandarin as an up and comer. There are historical and contemporary reasons for the rise of these four above hundreds others. Spanish and French were spread earliest through colonization, and English gained global importance along with all other US exports in the first days of globalization. Mandarin is of late being emphasized for the same reason, its global market share and GDP.

But this is not a recent development. In the Middle Ages elites could converse across national boundaries in Latin, and later French became the language of many European royal courts. The upper class and the educated class had then and retain now an increased ability to communicate on a global level. Anderson writes of language being essential to national shared identity. I reject, however, the validity of this as an exclusive claim with respect to nations formed on principle rather than cultural heritage. To become a citizen of the US one has to show competence in the English language, however I believe an immigrant who comes to this country the way most of our ancestors did, with regard to the American ideals is already a member of the nation regardless of their mastery of English because of their choice to align with national tenants. 

Mackenzie Wenner Blog 1

What makes a nation? What are its purposes? How do you know you belong to it?

Though in this country we seem to often confuse the word with terms like “across the nation” the true definition of a nation has nothing to do with physical borders because it is the assembly of a community. A nation is formed not with a pen or a map but out of generations or even millennia of shared culture or ethnicity and decent. People make nations from shared perspectives and a cultural camaraderie, rather than with the express intent to govern or organize. This is not to say that the two cannot go together. In the United States we have a history of forming a nation out of a shared set of ideals about how a country should be governed and what relationship citizens should have with their government. Ours is a nation whose common ties are a set of ideas rather than ethnicity. For that we are an outlier, and I believe, a fortunate one.

A nation itself in the technical sense has no express purpose with formation. The formation is a phenomenon of accident and human socialization that draws people together. Though as I said above occasionally nations can be formed with purpose in mind. Our nation was formed with the intent to create a governing system based on equality and individual inalienable rights. I said above that I believe America to be stronger for this. There are nations around the world that have specific ideals as part of their national heritage: Iran’s national identity is based on rule of law through religion, and Israel’s prioritizes a homeland for Jewish people around the globe, however a nation itself does not need a goal or purpose to be formed.

Inclusion in a nation I imagine in their inceptions to be similarly informal, however today most national identities are marked either by borders or by explicit cultural or hereditary traits. In the US, as well as in several other nations fortunate enough to have had control over their own borders, nations typically fit into countries quite reliably. Though within our borders we also have distinct nations, specifically the many different native tribes. In the cases of those nations not reinforced by recognized legal barriers there are other means of “nation maintenance”, typically culturally based, so that no member can be unsure of their affiliation.  This tendency however, makes me reassess my earlier claim that the nation itself needs no purpose. The pains taken to maintain nations and keep future generations from straying seems to suggest a cross-national cause devoted to continuity. A nation serves to self-preserve, protecting the identifying traits or beliefs that cause individuals to join. Thus protecting every member’s highest regarded personal tenants or qualities. 

Chris Phillibert: More and more nationalism (7)

While in this chapter Anderson speaks more to the rise of Nationalism in Africa and Asia after the first World War, there are certainly parallels to American nationalism that are applicable to American society. No matter if the country is the United States or any other nation, there are certain things that nationalism requires a citizen to do. Among these things are aligning yourself with the history of the nation and believing in your nation's place in history. This is very important to nations because if this is well established then nations can make claims to land, resources, and other things based on their perceived historical precedent. An example of this would be Hitler's taking of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia because there had been historically national Germans living there. Another thing that nationalism requires is subscribing to the symbols of your nation. Whether this is a flag, coat of arms, motto, or some combination of the aforementioned, these symbols are important to establishing your nation's national identity.

When I think about nationalism on an individual scale, I feel it equates to pride in your identity as a person. With the acting out of personal stories like we did in class, I feel as if that's a way of taking pride in your own history. We were told to tell a story represents us, which is similar to how the history of a nation defines or explains how they are and illustrate a representation of the country as a whole. I know that personally I loved telling my anecdote to Sarah and I feel as if memories from my childhood are a real part of my identity and have certainly formed me to who I am today. I know that this may sound materialistic, but I believe that national symbols transferred to an individual scale may equate to a person's possessions or the items they choose to surround themselves with. Any item that is constantly present in your life becomes a symbol and how you use it is can be a small representation of how you live life.

Overall I think nationalism is most intimately connected with identity. The identity you choose to construct for yourself is how you see yourself similar to how a nation chooses to represent itself is a reflection of its culture, customs, and ideology. I think applying large concepts to an individual basis is an important way to examine or observe things.

Blog 7: American Nationalism and Imperialism by Matt Antezana

In Chapter 7 Benedict Anderson addresses the end of the dynastic era after World War I and the beginning nation-state as the international norm. After the second World War, the nation-state became the prominent actor on the international stage with empires becoming a thing of the past. Anderson claims that many of these new nation-states modeled the American example and had European languages of state. He writes "if they resembled the 'American' model in this respect, they took from linguistic European nationalism its ardent populism, and from official nationalism its Russifying policy orientation" (113). This quote represents what American Nationalism is, in that it shows that American Nationalism is rooted from European influences that affect its policy formulations. Anderson alludes to the historical of America which are now imagined everywhere because the "European languages-of-state they employ were the legacy of imperialist official nationalism" (113). 

These imperialist values that took part in forming American nationalism have influenced the beliefs of the community within the state and even over the rest of the world. All over the US one can see the influences of American Nationalism in the various ways whether it's through advertisements or displays of American pride with phrases such as "I'm proud to be an American". Anderson refers to this as "popular nationalist enthusiasm" that is spread through the educational system, mass media, and other institutions (114). He also argues that "industrial capitalism" such as railways and motor transport among other has aided in spreading such the nationalist ideology (115). In current times it is easy to see the effect of institutions like the media and how industrial capitalism influence the spread of ideas and values that make up communities. Within its geography America expects that its citizens to carry out duties and responsibilities, both of these are stressed from an early age usually in a civics class in the eighth grade. Some of these include voting, obeying the law, defending the nation, and/or simply spreading "patriotism" throughout our community. This affects the rest of the world in that America, like its European ancestors that influenced its imperialistic values, has sought to spread the ideology to other parts of the world. This is evident in the beliefs of Manifest Destiny and in White Man's burden; America justifies it because of the belief that our system of democracy is the best. This however has resulted in injustices being committed such as the case of the Philippines and in various Latin-American countries such as Nicaragua. The film "Amigo" shows example of this where the Americans thought their actions were justified because they believed that they were helping the natives by forcibly spreading their ideology.     

John Wang Blog 7

In chapter 7, Anderson emphasizes the importance of education in the development of nationalism. To me this ties back to language as being key as it serves as a vehicle for lessons to be taught. Teaching history is a crucial part in the fostering of a national identity. Countries that are spread out that can manage to bond with a common history through education can form a strong sense of national identity. In the United States history is a required discipline that is drilled into you from kindergarten to college. I believe it is the same in other countries despite some of their significantly longer histories. You can also notice in smaller volatile countries, things are not following the smooth path of history, but instead history is being written amongst the turmoil. American Nationalism can be strongly tied to its history and belief in a future. The population is growing more and more diverse and some ways apart from each other. However, history remains the same, and there are plenty of things people can agree on for Americas future.

Coleen Herbert Blog 7

The point that Anderson belabors in chapter 7 is the role of education in establishing a nationalist discourse. Pilgrimages across nation-states were initiated by "industrial capitalism" (115),  a growing need for a mediation between the metropolitan state and colonized peoples, and education reform. For Creoles, being bilingual "meant access, through the European language-of-state, to modern Western culture in the broadest sense, and, in particular, to the models of nationalism, nation-ness, and nation-state produced elsewhere in the course of the nineteenth century" (116). The functionary journey of pilgrimage was transformed by the twentieth-century colonial school-system. What differentiated emerging nationalist America from Europe was its age. "Youth" became politicized and capable of "definable sociological contours" (119).  Educational policy in Indochina demolished political and cultural ties between colonized people and the extra-Indochinese world (124).  In addition, it established a system of language that cultivated an "acculturated indigenous elite" (126). The educational policy enacted in America likewise harnessed the intersectionality of race and class to its advantage. My definition of American nationalism is therefore assimilation via education. Citizens are expected to adopt imaginary concepts of the nation and submit themselves to the regime of education. The world that is exterior to the nation is polarized and othered (othering also occurs within the nation).
We observe this type of othering within the educational system in Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision. Racist discourse surrounded Maya's winning design. She was discriminated against for being both Asian and a woman. Racism and sexism are so inherent in our educational system that we mostly confront them with othering. The nationalist concept of war was also repeatedly argued against in the film. Dissenters believed that Maya's design was irreverent and minimalist. It clashed with the visual representations of glory and war that we are educated with. Maya Lin's design presents not only a new representation of war and loss, but a new mode of education.

Laura Menzel Blog #7: Legacy

In chapter 7, Anderson emphasizes the importance of education as a factor in social climbing and building nationalism.  "The intelligentsia were central to the rise of nationalism" and "the spread of modern-style education...provided cadre for governmental and corporate hierarchies" (Anderson, 116).  Educational systems also brought the educated together by connecting them in a "pilgrimage which paralleled longer-established functionary journeys" (Anderson, 121).  Students from many different parts of a country, with perhaps different cultural backgrounds, were tied together by their similar educational journeys.  This built a camaraderie among the educated.  Also because education was tightly regulated, all students would learn about their ruling country's fight for independence, hoping that one day their history books would contain a story of their own country's independence.

I think many of us can speak from experience that the American Revolution was strongly emphasized in our grade school American history education.  Especially in Virginia, colonial history was also emphasized.  In fourth grade there was a huge colonial unit that took multiple months and culminated in a colonial festival day at the school as well as a weekend trip to the historic triangle.  No other unit even compared to the enormity of Colonial America.  This reflects the importance we, as social human beings, place on the ability to claim a legacy.  American Nationalism, like other nationalisms, is built on that legacy.  This comes from the simple tendency to celebrate your origins.  Much like a royal family's lineage, people reach to claim a distant relation.  They want to feel close to the people who started something so grand.  For better or worse, the history books teach us that our nation was founded by brave men of European decent who believed in freedom and democracy.  People like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington were the first American heroes.  By glorifying their accomplishments, we put their European heritage at the top of our hegemony.

The biggest contributor to the European legacy is, of course, Britain.  In elementary school world history was not a large unit, but we did learn about English history, specifically events such as the drafting of the Magna Carta that led to the establishment of democracy.  American Nationalism clings onto democracy as its defining factor and right to existence.  Our manifest destiny is to spread democracy to the nations of the world.  Once America established its legacy, it sought to spread its legacy - democracy - elsewhere.  This was the justification for American territorial expansion into the Philippines  Guam, Puerto Rico, and other areas.  American Nationalism saw itself as a savior to these people, who must be so lost without democracy.  We saw this complete faith in the good of democracy in the American soldiers in Amigo.  The lieutenant repeatedly says, "the will of the people is sacred".  His respect for democracy means he must free Rafael when he elected head of the baryo.  We continue to see elements of manifest destiny today when we celebrate our successes in introducing democracy in Afghanistan and the elections held there.  American soldiers fight to protect our freedom, but when did we transition to fighting to protect the freedom of the world?  American Nationalism envisions itself as a protector of freedom.  Surely world peace and freedom are worthy causes to protect and fight for, but at what cost?