Victoria Olayiwola Blog # 2: From where are you, kind sir?

No one ever stresses it, people normally just say oh I'm from x, I'm from y and I'm from z. No one ever stresses it until somebody goes no, where are you from from? And then the person being asked has that puzzled look on their face because nobody ever stresses it, as I said before. Then they say what do you mean? To which the person asking the question says, I mean where are your parents from?

So when I was asked again and again by Francis I was the perplexed person being questioned and he was the person asking until I went oh yep...ok. In this short blog I hope to adequately answer the question about my origin.

Normally when I am asked where do I come from I just say London because that is normally enough to satisfy the Yanks. But is this where I am really from? Well yes and no. I mean I was born and raised in London so I have adopted London cultural values, British idiosyncrasies, customs and values as a result.

But when somebody asks me, no, where are you from from? Then I ponder and think and give the long answer. That answer being both my parents were born and raised in Nigeria. My dad came to London as a student and my mother joined him later. They became economic migrants when things in Nigeria turned out for the worst and things started to get bad in every sense of the word. This is when they decided to stay in Britain.

But when I give this answer I feel I am giving too much information away, information I would not have had to give away had I just given the short quick answer. Information nobody really wants to know so I always think the short answer is always the best answer.

So despite my being British and choosing to align myself with British-ness, I have a very African upbringing. Discipline, respect and reverence to education was established in our household, maybe not as much as it would have had I been in Nigeria; but even in its weak form, it was still prevalent.

It may be the case that the 'system' created the boxes-that come with question what is your nationality?-with little descriptions of what nationality we are, but every time we tick one of those boxes we are abiding and complying with those restrictions society or the system places on us.  We are accepting the definition those small descriptions next to the boxes offer.

Maybe it is not such a bad thing or maybe it is a bad thing I don't know, I guess it depends on the person but if we think it is bad thing and we comply (we tick the box), how do we expect society to know any better when all we do is comply with the boxes. You know I  used to hate being called black because I am not black, nobody is, neither is anyone white for that matter. But I gave in. I stopped correcting people because everyone else accepted the tag and took no issue. I still take issue with it and the term 'Blacks' but obviously others don't so I keep schtum about it.

If we except these boxes we are saying I fit into this box or this description goes with me (or at least we are saying this description at the very least best defines/describes me), but are we really definable?

I don't think we are. God knows we are so mixed and mixed and mixed all over again, some of us more than others, that the darkest African or the Whitest Briton may look as if they, in such a clear-cut manner, fit into one of the boxes society sets out for us to tick. But they don't, not really. Because if you dig deep, even they are mixed somewhere whether it be a strong mix or a weak one. Down their ancestral line there is a mix somewhere.

But does nationality and where one is from really matter? I mean in the screenings, especially the first one (Triumph of Will) where the Rodney King was mercilessly beaten and Latasha Harlins was shot at point blank range, race would have forced me out into the streets. I didn't have to be American and as you see most American "rebelling"/"rioting" (very charged words) were black not white Americans. So it was not really a nationality thing. A combination of cause (the injustice the fact the family got $500 dollars and Du got probation whilst Latasha's funeral cost $7500*) and race (the fact they were both black) would have forced me to sing if it was my thing (like Ice Cube who wrote a song called “Black Korea,” about the murder) or riot if that was my thing. Therefore the role nationality plays in our lives and how much weight it carries is questionable. 

Source: http://www.southcentralhistory.com/la-riots.php

So in my endeavour to comply with the boxes society sets out I will say I am Black British not because this is what I really am but rather because this best defines me.

On the question of race vs nationality and which precedes the other in importance, well that remains questionable. For me race means more to me than nationality but this cannot be said to be the case for everyone. And this cannot be said to be the case for me all the time. I guess it must be measured on a case by case basis. But it is a valid question worth being asked.

However to conclude I must say that unfortunately, those small boxes with their small descriptions can never describe us for what we really are. They only go so far.

Really, I am undefinable. Take my word for it, none of us are.

*estimate

Where am I from? by Matt Antezana

 The question of where are you from, is a question that I am all too familiar with and that I'm sure we all have heard and will continue to hear in our lives. Whether I'm asked the question by somebody, answering it as part of some sort of application, or simply telling somebody my address; it seems to always come up. At times I'm even confused as to whether someone is asking where in the United States I live or why I look the way I look. There have been plenty of times where I became so used to saying that I'm latino that I actually overlooked the real question, which was simply where I lived, because I got so used to always having to tell somebody I'm latino.The question is the question I am most asked and at times I feel it even makes up part of who I am.

When I was really young, especially when I first started going to school, I had trouble answering the question. I remember it was one of the first questions I was asked at in kindergarten by a counselor and at first I responded with Springfield, VA but then she asked me where my parents where from. Of course, I responded with Bolivia but looking back now she was actually asking for my ethnicity. At times I find myself wondering why its such an important question in our society and why it seems to make up such a big part of who we are. For me, being latino and all, I feel that its a different experience because people expect me to talk about my ethnicity and in reality really just want to know why I look the way I do. I've never been ashamed of being latino and I've always embraced my heritage, but I do wonder why this question is so persistently asked.

While I've lived in Northern Virginia my entire life, I always been proud of being latino and of my latino culture. While at times I've felt a little ostracized because of the negative portrayal of latinos on the media and in other areas; I've never felt out of place because I'm from here. I can't really speak for my parents or other latinos who were raised and have lived a big part of their lives somewhere in Latinoamerica. Since a young age I've felt like it was almost an obligation for me to become fluent in spanish (which I am) and to at least embrace some aspects of Bolivian culture. But because of how and where I was raised that never really became a problem for me. Which leads me to believe that your environment and who you're around plays a major role in all of this.

Laura Menzel Blog #2: Where are you from?

When I first read the prompt for this week, "Where are you from?", I must admit, I gave a little groan.  Mostly because I had been asked a similar question in a class setting in 8th grade.  We learned about Alex Haley's Roots (I am very excited for Dr. Haley's guest lecture) and our assignment was to write a poem about our family's heritage.  The lesson was that we cannot get to where we are going or even know where we are going until we understand where we came from.  This was part of Alex Haley's inspiration to research his heritage and produce Roots.  I love Roots, and I enjoy hearing other people's stories about how their family came to the country, but for me, there was little to tell, and what I think I know is clouded with uncertainty.  My mom guesses her family side of the family was originally Scotch-Irish.  My dad's side of the family is Polish and, I thought at the time I was doing the project, German.  My paternal great-grandmother was also one-quarter Cherokee, so there is a minimal amount of Cherokee blood in me as well.  With a shaky story at best of my family's journey to America, I began to wonder if heritage really mattered.  Couldn't I say I was American and be done with it?  At what point do you accept that so many different ethnic groups have blended over such a long time that you can't keep track of them all and become simply American?

Perhaps feeling a little dejected after hearing my classmates' rich stories of heritage, my 8th grade self decided to reject the necessity of heritage and declare my American-ness.  A few years later, I received more of the cultural story I was looking for.  After my grandfather died, my grandmother found my great-grandfather's birth certificate among his things.  It was written in Russian and the name was Mensal, rather than Menzel.  My great-grandfather and his family immigrated to America when he was a baby, and had always told his children they were German.  They in fact lived in Russia.  At the time they were immigrating, it was more difficult to get in to the country if you were from Eastern Europe than if you were from Western Europe.  They changed their name to Menzel and passed for German.

After watching Twilight:  LA, I reflected on how ethnic and racial differences are the source of so much misunderstanding and misguided anger.  I thought of how unified languages, such have Esperanto, have been proposed to ease if not erase our differences.  I hope for peace in the world, but I don't think ignoring or erasing our differences is the way to do it.  This brings me to one the The Office episodes, "Diversity Day", in which Michael Scott claims he is "color blind"  and does not see race.  I think this reflects the approach to diversity some people have.  They are afraid to tread on any toes so they ignore the subject altogether.  (That's not to say that we should embrace all stereotypes either, as The Office clip shows).  I think the best way to approach diversity is to appreciate, understand, and celebrate our differences.  Once I came to this conclusion, I had a new appreciation for the heritage exercise in 8th grade.  My heritage may not be rich or detailed, but it is part of what makes me, me.  And your heritage makes you, you.  I don't think knowing your entire history is necessary to move forward, but it is certainly something to be celebrated.

Blog #2, Ashley Murphy

If you ask someone the question, "Where are you from?", every answer you receive will be different. No person has the same exact upbringing or is from the exact same place. Many people are born in the same city or country, but the experiences that bring them to where they are currently aren't the same. This being said, I think it is safe to say that although everyone is different in this way, we are all alike in that we feel a connection to our homes and our ancestry.

My sense of home is connected most strongly to the city and region I'm from: Roanoke in Southwestern Virginia. There is no place like it. I also feel strongly about my country, the United States, just as over 300 million other people do. Years before I was born, somehow someone in my family entered this country. I have no idea how. I may never know who this person was, what was their occupation, why they came. That doesn't really bother me. My parents tell me I have traces back to Ireland and Germany, but I'm not so sure they really know for certain. One day I might visit these countries and envision the journey from there to America.

As the only actor portraying the different roles in the Twilight: Los Angeles filmed play, there was a parallel to how different people from varying backgrounds can have strong, similar sentiments about an issue. To me, there is no 'us' and 'them', it is simply 'we'. Although we are from different places, everyone can relate to one another in that we care about where we come from and where we're going.

Where are you from?

   I remember reading an article during the summer that talked about what an "American looked like." It started off with a cab driver asking someone if he was Indian because he did not look American. He responded by saying "What does an american look like?" and the cab drive answered "blonde hair and blue eyes." Reading this article upset me primarily because from what I have learned in history classes Native Americans were the first Americans and they do not have blonde hair and blue eyes. They lived on this land way before Europeans came to take over.  But with the exception of Native American Indian, an "American" does not have a certain look because America is home to beautiful array of ethnicities.  On most city streets it's possible to look around and see a plethora of people representing different parts of the world.
   Kind of going off of what we talking about in class, I don't understand why some people are too embarrassed to ask where someone is from. As far as I know people won't get offended, especially if they are proud of their nationality. Personally, I like the reactions people have when I tell them that I am Dominican and Liberian, it lets them know that there is more to me than meets the eye.  At the same time, I get to teach them about two cultures. Similarly, not only do I get to teach my peers about these cultures, I also get to teach my relatives.  Although I rarely spent time with my Dominican side and Liberian side at the same gathering, I never had the issue of feeling out of place with either side during the holidays.
    But looking at it from a different perspective, here in America when people ask me "Where are you from?" I would respond by saying "my dad is Liberian, and my mom is Dominican."  But I feel as though if I were to go to London and someone asked me the same question, I would probably say "American."  And that's interesting because I do not have a real reason as to why I would respond that way.  They're asking me the same question right? Is it because it is simpler? Or is it simply because I automatically assume that they can tell that I'm not from the area? Who's to say that they are not asking me in the same way the people from America do? This is something I will definitely be thinking about the next couple of days, because I want to find a legitimate answer.

Jillian Turner Blog # 2: Rap and Race

Twilight, Los Angeles got me thinking: has much changed in America in the past twenty years since the LA riots in relation to the Rodney King beating? Just recently the Treyvon Martin case sparked similar unrest in the African American community. So have Americans finally been able to look past skin color? Yes, we have public figures like Barak Obama, Jay-Z, Beyonce, and LeBron James who are successful African Americans and would have undoubtedly made their ancestors proud but there still is an inherent disconnect between races.

As we have discussed in class, race is something that is both highlighted in our society and made taboo by the urge to be politically correct. Regrettably, we have become accustomed to making assumptions based on race but, if the past few class periods have taught us anything, it's that you simply can't judge a person by what meets the eye. Today, it is more often than not that you will find someone who is of some mixed race. So if skin color doesn't define race, what does? How can we delineate something so convoluted?

Our conversations from class today got me thinking about music: how has music portrayed the changes in the African American community over the past few decades? As Ice T discussed in film today, he was simply rapping about what was going on and what he knew. As was Dr. Dre when he dedicated albums to the African Americans dying in race-related riots. I focused on two songs: Black or White by Michael Jackson and Chocolate High by India.Arie. Both songs empower beauty in race but do so in vastly different ways. In his song, Michael Jackson hammers home his refrain "it don't matter if your black or white!" But does it? Many would disagree with Jackson and say that everything depends on race: who you are, what you'll be, how much money you make... In his song, it seems like Michael is taking a defensive standpoint. It doesn't matter what your skin color is because it shouldn't be focused on...

In Chocolate High, however India.Arie and Musiq Soulchild glorify black beauty. In these two songs alone, we can see such contrasting viewpoints. So how has American culture in the African American community changed? Has it at all?

Black Or White

Chocolate High

Mayssa Chehata Blog #2, Part 2: Twilight, Los Angeles 1992

I wanted to follow up my Blog #2 post with some additional comments and relate my thoughts back to the Twilight: Los Angeles film.

Our mental schema are constructed and have developed to look at the world and want to place people into groups and categories. This helps us make assumptions about people, which is often times easier than actually getting to know someone on a deeper level. This obviously perpetuates stereotypes and hinders social development. Thinking about this in the context of Twilight: Los Angeles and the LA riots, I think it is obvious that the LA community was very much formed along these lines. In the film, we particularly see the African American, Korean, and White communities at odds with each other. I can imagine that other groups were divided and experienced similar tensions between one another.

I thought it was really interesting in class when Professor Tanglao noted that it was not only African Americans involved in the riots, but also Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, pretty much everybody. This was interesting because it sort of blurred the lines of “us” vs. “them,” which in this case would have been African Americans versus Whites and Koreans, or possibly a better division would be lower class versus upper class. Professor also noted that this was not the case either, and people of all economic backgrounds took part. Nonetheless, I would imagine (and I caught myself doing this throughout the film) that African Americans participating in the riots were grouping together all “White” or all “Korean” people as one group. One looter made an interesting comment stating, “It’s not us looting the shops, that’s the Mexicans.” Again, this brings up that “us” and “them” mentality.

Another instance where this was brought up was in the Matt McDaniel film, where he discusses with rappers (before the riots occurred) about their subject matter, and focuses on how the phrase “Fuck the Police” came about and the rappers’ relationships with the police. One rapper made the comment that, “All police ain’t bad police, just like 90 percent of them. And we’re talking about that 90 percent.” So here again, we see a psychological division (done mentally, and perpetuated physically in the form of uniforms and behavior of policemen), a categorization, and a stereotyping. This case is not in racial terms but in terms of profession.

Another comment I wanted to add from today’s class discussion was a question brought up (I believe by Caio) at one point asking Does this still happen today? And the answer to that is, does what part of the LA riots still happen today. I think you can break down the entire situation into many pieces. For example, you could say:

1.     Does racial profiling in the justice system still happen today? I would say yes.

2.     Are trials sometimes mishandled due to overzealous media coverage? Yes.

3.     Are trials sometimes mishandled due to racial profiling? Yes.

However, Professor Tanglao responded to this stating, but do we have the riots? And this is very important. I thought a lot about the Treyvon Martin case while watching this movie and reflecting on the LA riots and their context in today’s society. While there was a backlash to what happened, there was nothing to the extent of the backlash of what happened after the Rodney King beating. And this got me thinking about power, and hegemony, and society. Has the hegemony in American society grown so much that we no longer stand up for ourselves?

This then got me thinking about the Occupy Wall Street movement. That was a backlash to a social injustice that was going on, but again, nothing like the LA Riots. This is not to say that I am in favor of un-peaceful protest, I absolutely am not, but I just wonder about what has changed since 1992 that we don’t see that kind of backlash to social injustice anymore. You could say that OWS was one of the largest social movements of our generation, and the injustice it was addressing (economic injustice) was HUGE and affected millions of people, but it still was, in my open, kept at a slight murmur (maybe at sometimes a whisper, but usually not even that) since it first got started.

Sorry for writing such long winded posts, but I’m interested in what everyone else thinks about how society today differs from that of 1992, that we don’t see as immense of responses to social injustices.

Mayssa Chehata Blog #2: Categories, Division, Stereotype, and Me

Where are you from? What an interesting question. Having features and a skin color that is different from typical Caucasian, this is a question I am very accustomed with. Sometimes it comes straight out upon meeting someone, sometimes it is tip-toed around as though I would be offended by the question, and sometimes it comes as an assumption. “Are you Indian?” “Are you Latina?” In any case, it is a question people ask, whether out loud or in their heads. People are so interested in asking it because the answer is the key that will help with our constant categorization and compartmentalizing of one another. Does this person fit into this category? Or that one? Should I think of them as an us? Or as a them? This is why the question is so important.

It is also often times an area of fascination. People are really interested in learning more about you and where you come from. It is what makes us different that makes us beautiful, so learning more about our differences really brings us together. I truly believe this, but it can also make way for stereotyping. Stereotyping is more often than not sub-conscious, but it happens none the less. Sometimes it is immediate, when the separation of a person into a group can be done based on physical characteristics. This person is part of this group, so they are friendly, or dangerous, or soft-spoken, or cheap, etc. However in my case, it takes the question to form put me into the category, and it’s interesting how that process can go. Of course I base my evidence on assumptions, because I cannot know what people are thinking, but I know that my dad, who is also racially ambiguous (as I have been deemed as by my peers, not that it is good or bad, it just is), gets much different looks at the airport if he has grown a full bear versus if he is clean shaven.

I see it happen all the time, as a change in expression or demeanor. Not only with me but with other people as well. When someone has already placed you into some group, and you tell them you are not part of that group, they have to change their mental schemas completely.

To answer where I am from, both of my parent and all my ancestors are from the North African state of Tunisia. Tunisia has been home to Berbers and various nomadic tribes, part of the Roman Empire, occupied by Vandals, Byzantines, and Arabs; part of the Ottoman Empire, a French colony, and finally a (somewhat) independent nation. I consider myself a Tunisian-American. Some consider Tunisia part of the Middle East while others call it part of Africa. We are, for the most part, considered ethnically Arab (hence my father’s beard issues at the airport), and a predominantly Muslim country.

The question of “where are you from” seems so simple, yet is so complicated. I answer it often with little though, but how is my answer affecting the way I am perceived in the world? What are the consequences of our answers? What are the consequences of asking the question? What if people felt no need to ask the question, and we considered ourselves to all be from earth? All questions I don’t have answers to, but hope to explore further.

Matt Raimondo, Blog #2

Though we are all still young, we have each been asked questions about our origins since our earliest social interactions.  When people ask “where are you from?”, your answer provides the questioner with many small facets of who you really are.  Your answer can show an allegiance to a particular state, country or city while also allowing you to indicate where you would like to be associated.  For example, one who says, “I was born in ____, but raised in ____” may show a personal preference to be associated with a different geographical location than the area where the individual was born.  However, this can only really be applied when looking at this question from a geographical context.  One must look a little deeper in order to answer the question “where are you from?” without solely using a geographic association. 

I think that it helps to reshape the question “Where are you from?” to “What makes you, you?”.  This allows us to ignore geographic constraints when answering this question, and allows for a more thorough and insightful response.  When I answer this reshaped question in this new context, I don’t really think much about the location of my origins as opposed to my mental and spiritual composition.  I think of traditional family values, hard-working parents and strong ties to faith.  I see my own personal adversities while also understanding how these adversities became my triumphs.  I believe that this approach alone has allowed me to paint a significantly better picture of myself both to me and others; I no longer feel explicitly tied to one region.  Last week’s in-class exercise did achieve that feeling in my opinion.  Yes, we did divide up according to regional or ancestral origins, but when asked personally about our roots, each of us had a unique story to tell; after that discussion, I realized that it wasn’t about the region itself, it was about the people in those regions that made them special. 

We have just started the film Twilight: Los Angeles 1992, yet I can already see that the documentary isn’t just about the city of LA.  Of course, the riots occurred in the city, but the story lies with the people that lived in LA during the time of the riots.  I think that Smith is trying to show us this by portraying each character in his/her own unique personality.  I could be completely wrong, but I am excited to see where the film plays out, and what insights we can learn from such a historical event.  

Chris P. "Where are you from?" Blog 2

When I think about the question "Where are you from?" the most immediate answer that comes to mind is geographic location. Geographically, I'm from New York. I think this is the first answer that comes to mind because this is my usual go-to answer when I get asked by someone where I'm from. I think this is the answer I give because it's the easiest answer to give. Where I'm from is such a huge part of who I am and location determines what external factors influence my identity so it's hard to say where I'm from without going into who I am as a person. Since it's socially inappropriate to delve into the recesses of your personal identity the first time you meet someone, I give the geographic location answer as many others do as well. When I saw the "No, where are you from from?" question, I thought about what I derive from. The most straightforward answer to that question is my family. Not only do I derive from my family biologically, but the morals, values, perspective on the world and overall demeanor I have is a product of my family as well. Almost everything that makes up my personality and beliefs that are an extension of the aforementioned values come from my family as well. When I think about what nationality I am I immediately think I am American. I have lived in the United States my whole life and the culture I am familiar with since birth is American. Especially since the first question asked how we know we belong to a nation, I am firmly confident that I identify with American as my nationality.

The duality between answering the "Where are you from?" question from a geographic perspective versus talking about the derivative of your identity is apparent in Anna Deavere Smith's Twilight: Los Angeles 1992. In this film, Smith takes on the persona of people she interviewed about the 1992 riots in Los Angeles and relates to the audience exactly what those people said to her. Through her comical caricatures, Smith paints a portrait of the opinions about the riots and Los Angeles as a whole from the perspective of the people that live in the area. Immediately, the diversity among socio-economic status, nationality, age, race, and mannerisms were striking. This fact is a testament that answering the "Where are you from?" question with a simple geographic answer does not tell the whole story.

Though where someone is from is crucial to understanding a person as a whole, it is not the most important factor when considering someone's identity. The fact that saying that you're from a certain city can denote you as resembling any one of the multitude of identities Smith portrayed on screen clearly means that there is diversity among people even when they live in the same geographic area.

Tonisha Spratte Blog #2

Race/Nationality and Shade

Francis asked a question last class; what is out/the human way of organizing/dividing?  The first thing that popped in my head was by race.  Honestly, whether intentionally or not we tend to divide ourselves by race more often than not, especially in places such as W&M where our minority status is blatant or easily recognized.  It is a common joke amongst me and my friends and I suppose the larger black community as well, that all the black people know each other and when we see a black person we do not know we are usually quick to change that.  Race is typically one of the quicker/easier ways to try and identify someone you could get along with or have similar experiences or interests, tastes, and background.  The activities we did on Thursday, in my humble opinion, seems to have weakened this logic through explicitly exploring it.  By separating ourselves by race we not only learned of about the commonalities we share through race and nationality but also about our differences.  I’m pretty sure that everyone there had a follow-up question for someone or wanted someone to expand upon a topic.

Also, while we were doing the exercise and Francis was talking about how all of us black people probably have some European ancestry (which I agree with) as well as the many “bridges” we had in class connecting different circles of races it reminded me of this South Park episode where people from the future came to South Park to find jobs.  Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, do such a good job on criticizing so many different aspects of not only American life but humans in general.  But I digress, the people who came from the future were al one color, looked one way, and spoke one language, which happened to be some sort of mix of all the languages as their race was a mix of all races.  Not saying that this is scientifically correct but it is a reminder of how commonplace interracial couples have become, which, of course, I’m not knocking it, half of my family is in or is a product of interracial marriages and relationships.

The last point I will get into is “Shade-ism.”  This was brought up at the end of class on Thursday and as a young dark skinned African American woman, I know and feel the effects of this aforementioned –ism.  Shade-ism, for those who do not know, is a form of disdain that people, commonly throughout the African American race have for different shades of brown in said race.  A lot of people like to say that light skinned black people look better than dark skinned black people.  Now, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that is just ridiculous.  For example, when someone belittles another they might say something along the lines of “You old black….”  Why is that used in degradation?  Why is being darker a bad thing?  Oh, or something along the lines of “He was real dark, but he was cute.”  using ‘but’ to introduce a contradictory clause.  Meaning ‘real dark’ would never equate to cute ordinarily.  Or “Oh, she’s dark skinned and has long hair?” like it’s impossible or something.  And this is the worst; “You’re pretty for a dark skinned girl.”  [In my head “Fuck you.] *stale face* -_- *gets up and walks away* This is just the ignorance of this world.  It is perfectly fine that dark skinned black women may not be your preference, to each his/her own, but to project your shade-ism onto myself and others is unacceptable.  Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Or even know what I’m talking about/where I’m coming from?



In relation to my comment, after on the left and before on the right:

Yue (Ivy) Blog #1: Communities as Abstract Constructs

Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities explores issues concerning human belonging and the abstract constructs that support the foundation of social groups. He states that nation is “an imagined political community that is both inherently limited and sovereign.” This understanding of the concept of nationality stands in contrast to race and country in the sense that we are pre-destined to be born of a certain genetic grouping, as we are pre-destined to be born in a specific location. Race and country of origin are immutable facts about an individual, which to an extent, serve as landmarks of one’s identity. Nationality however, is as Anderson describes - both “political” and “sovereign.” When one chooses to be part of a nation one also subscribes to the ideologies and morals of that nation.

These observations are discussed in Passing Through, the story of Nathan Adolfson’s deep personal journey of self-discovery. Nathan is a Korean born adoptee to a white American family. Nathan’s desire to rediscover his race and country takes him back to his original family but ultimately he discovers that his national identity is stronger by virtue of culture, custom, habit, language etc.

An interesting notion that exemplifies the abstract concept of nations is the alien invasion scenario. If tomorrow an alien species began indiscriminately killing humans, our racial and national divides would completely vanish given that the parameters that defined the concepts of us versus them. In this sense, one must interpret nation as a set of values that are mutable, flexible and also a choice.

In my opinion, excessive adherence to any form of identity is negative. One should always be curious about one’s origins and respect of one’s forefathers but also cautious not to cross into racism and partisanship.

           

People and Nations

A nation is a region where people live together under a government either in peace or in war, with a common purpose or no purpose, with religions in common or without, or with a common heritage or ethnicity or without. However, in a nation there must be something in common people share that holds them together. For example, though the United States is a nation where there are a number of different religions, cultures, and ethnicities represented and its citizens do not share a common heritage, citizens do share the belief that the United States is the greatest country in the world to live. Korea is very much different from the United States in terms of nations. Korea fits the traditional meaning of nation much more closely. Most people share the same ethnicity and culture. The most important thing about a nation is that the people live together in an area and can have something in common to believe in and hold them together.

Ideally, a nation’s purpose is to elevate the general quality of life for citizens, and this has traditionally been achieved through gaining more power. People want a place to live and be able to raise a family in a safe stable environment, have community and be able to pursue what they want in life. When these requirements are unmet people revolt or emigrate just like Adolfson did in the movie.

You know you belong to a nation if you were born as a citizen, or if you have sworn your allegiance to it. If question refers to the emotional aspect of belonging, I will also address that aspect. If you feel like you are unwelcome somewhere, chances are you are. A nation is a large place, move until you feel like you belong if you have sworn your allegiance. If you cannot, find a new nation, or new people to associate with. However, if you were a citizen of the United States and cannot find somewhere you fit in, chances are you are too sensitive and the problem is with yourself and not with others.

Mayssa Chehata Blog #1: The Psychology of a Nation

A nation is a psychological construct which is then manifested in the way humans behave, interact, and organize. Anderson describes a sort of emotional attachment felt by its members which defines a nation. Despite the fact that any member of a nation will never know or even see all the other members, they feel connected to them. This connection can go from something surface level and superficial, such as physical features or dialect, or can be deeper, such as common history/suffering, religion, or shared beliefs. It is these different levels of connection, and the associated emotions—which can be very strong—which cause people to act upon nationalism (could be through wars, revolution, civil service, community service, etc.).

I’m not sure there is a true “purpose” of creating nations, as it is something that happens in the mind, sometimes even within the subconscious, and is not necessarily done consciously. However, I think that nations do ultimately serve the purpose of allowing humans to categorize themselves. This is important not only in the organization of humans, economies, etc. but also in making us feel a sense of connected-ness, even at times when we are completely alone. One could look at the films we watched, Finding the Circle and Passing Through and note how although people in both films did not necessarily live in communities with people of their “nation,” (Nathan a Korean living in the Midwestern United States, and Native Americans becoming more assimilated into their American communities) they were able to still feel a sense of being connected to far away, and also deceased and not yet born, people.

Going back to the idea of organization, nation-ness also allows us to create the idea of “us” and “them,” rather than viewing the entire world as “us,” aka human. It would be difficult for people to feel a connection with the simple idea of being “human,” and is much easier to try to categorize and classify people according to various criteria. I think the idea of wanting to feel “connected-ness” even when you are alone is very important to humans, and if we classified the entire world as one nation, it would might revert us back to that sense of aloneness, as it is hard to feel a strong connection with 7 billion people, many of whom are so different from yourself. But on the other hand, viewing the entire world as a single nation, could encourage finding things that connect us all and focusing on those things. Today’s global society focuses on things that make us different, but if those differences were less important in the eyes of every human on earth, we would all feel connected to 7 billion other people every day.

In conclusion, defining the word nation is no simple task. We should recognize that, although nations are physically manifested today with lines drawn on maps (often arbitrarily by colonial rulers and imperialists), a nation is something that is created and exists in the minds of humans. Nations are dynamic, always moving and changing. The nation system we live in today didn’t even exist in most of the world until after World War II. It would be interesting to consider the question, how will the idea of the nation, and the way we think about nationality, change in the future? Will we always divide the world into “pieces of cake,” as the King Leopold II of Belgium described Africa at the Berlin Conference where the continent was dividing among the European powers? Or will we someday look at ourselves, each other, and the way we group and classify members of society very differently? Also is one way (the current way or a different one) better or worse? I’m very interested in hearing people’s thoughts.

Kadijah Webster: Blog #1, What exactly is a nation?

The meaning of a nation varies from person to person.  I believe that a nation is wherever a group of people can identify to themselves as home.  A nation can be built of many small communities or one single community.  Within these domains are traditions, values, and habits that have been passed down or picked up through the years from one person to another.  These traits, along with the people within, establish the foundation for a nation as a whole.  Growing up within the lines, one is developed into a product of their nation.  The things that they stand for or believe is right is all due to the nation that they have been brought up in.  The place that you identify as home, is the nation that has defined you as the person you are in the present.

Similarly, Nathan Adolfson felt that his family was who he grew up with in America and not his biological relatives in Korea.  Nathan was raised by the Adolfsons and did not go on to first meet his biological sister until he was pretty much a grown man.  Even after spending a great deal of time in the country he was born, he still felt as if he didn't belong.  The nation where his heart resides is where he grew up, not where he was simply born.  This is exactly an example of why someone's nation my not be the same as the next person's.  Not only has a nation molded someone into who they currently are, but it is the place where the feel most connected.  Nathan felt that connection with his adoptive family, the ones who have supported him and be by his side for most of his life.

Like Nathan, many people go through the dilemma of finding who they are and where they belong.  Finding your place within society is an important part of growing up.  Whether that place is with many other people or by oneself, it is the place where you can identify yourself and feel most comfortable.   This is the place where you choose to be because it is where you feel the most at ease.  This is your choice and this is your nation.

Nation as a concept

In his book Imagined Communities, Benedict Anderson discusses the concept of a nation as a socially constructed concept. Defining the concept of nation can be problematic as it relies on the defining, characterization and separation of people into categories that they themselves may not see themselves fitting into. When someone looks at me, they are very likely to make assumptions about my identity based on my race. In all honesty I was very uncomfortable in class when we were asked to separate into racial identities and had to stand up and give an explanation of where we come from. I was born in Michigan and have spent a large portion of my life in Brazil and Switzerland. Although my parents are from India, when I go to India I am looked at differently than the people around me. I do not reject my ancestry, but my race does not define me. The fact that you are now aware of the fact that my parents are Indian may confirm some preexisting notions you had of me. I have to admit that when I left the classroom after that exercise, I felt very uncomfortable, as though I confirmed a stereotypical notion of who I was. I believe that people are united and feel part of a nation when there are identifiable characteristics in others that are similar to themselves.

It is in human nature to divide things and put them into neat little categories and the concept of a nation is an extensive manifestation of this tendency.   Yet, nationality has become an integral part of what defines us as human beings. For some people the nation (the same could be said about gender, sexuality and race) plays a dominating role in their conceptions of themselves. I am going to be a complete geek right now, but when I was younger I used to watch a lot of Star Trek (not ashamed) with my family. I always used to wonder if human being could ever become peaceful and stop killing each other and if inequality could truly be eradicated. This show makes me sad because I realized that based on models of decision making (strategic choice, organizational theory, game theory etc etc) the only way that humans could be truly equal across nations is if there was some other identifiable "other". Currently, "others" are other nations and politically the "nation-state" must protect itself against said others.

Can a global community exist in a system (hierarchy?) where nations are forever competing against one another? I have absolutely no idea. 

"...And We Thought That Nation-States Were A Bad Idea"

In answering the question "what makes a nation?" I can only call upon my own background and try to explain what those words mean to me. As an American citizen and resident, I am a member of this nation. However, my parents are immigrants, which makes things a little bit more complicated. See, I'm no longer a member of majority American culture at this point, but cannot say I'm "half" or "part" American. I'm also an Israeli citizen, and in many ways consider myself to belong to that nation, as well. Jessie Dzura mentioned food as an indicator of nationality (cheeseburger as an American food); when I think of home cooking, I think of the many dishes my mom made, most of which are Israeli/middle eastern. Nations are mosaics; a big picture created by smaller fragments that may not make sense on their own. Cheeseburgers aren't a nation, but what could define America better than a Fourth of July cookout?

As far as the purpose of a nation, it seems twofold. The state has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and the nation itself is merely a symbol in which the citizens may put their trust. One may claim to belong to a nation, but in all honesty, it seems to me as if consent is unnecessary in this regard. Other members of a nation may reject your claim, and the state may refuse your rejection of the nation.

Blog 1

How important is knowing where you come from when it comes to knowing who you are? This is a question that has bothered me for a long time. My dad adopted me when I was 5, and I’ve never known my birth father. I wondered if I was missing some essential knowledge about myself, but recently I’ve decided I don’t care.; I won’t let my DNA dictate who I am. I don’t think of my nationality as something I inherited through blood. Instead, I think it’s determined by how I was raised.

However, I understand why Nathan Adolfson would struggle with these issues a little differently. Because he is Korean, people viewed him differently growing up. He never fully felt like he belonged. He went to college and then Korea to become closer to a culture he could see in himself. Yet, when he finally got to Korea, the connection he wanted wasn’t there. He didn’t grow up in Korea, so he couldn’t connect with people based on his birth alone.

During his journey, though, Nathan found a group of people that he could identify with. When he met others who had been adopted from Korea and grown up feeling like outsiders, he could relate to them. In a way, this is Nathan’s nation. These people share experiences with him that no one else can understand. Shared experiences are an essential part of what makes a nation. So although Nathan and the people he met who understood him did not all live in the same place, they have a bond that makes them a strong community of their own. 

Matt Antezana Blog 1

The term nation has long been associated with a variety of topics ranging from ideological movements such as Marxism, hegemonic states, and other similarly named terms (e.g. nationality and nationalism). However as Benedict Anderson says "nation, nationality, nationalism-all have proved notoriously difficult to define" (Anderson, 3). Even though the term has widely been referred to in association with a different ideologies and with the massive influence of nationalism in the modern an exact definition on the term of nation has yet to be established.

            Benedict Anderson proposes that the definition of the term nation is an "imagined political community and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign" (Anderson, 6). Anderson goes on to argue that it is imagined because the members of the nation will never meet most of the other members yet the image of their "communion" exists in the minds of each member (Anderson, 6). The nation is said to be limited because boundaries encompass all nations,  and they are sovereign because the concept came to light during the in a time where dynastic legitimacy was destroyed (Anderson, 7). The nation is defined as a community by Anderson because the nation "is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship" (Anderson, 7).

            Anderson proposes that in order to understand nationalism it is important to align it with the large cultural systems that preceded it (religious community and dynastic realm) instead of political ideologies (Anderson, 12). This proposal goes hand in hand with the question of how one knows if they belong to a nation and the film "Finding the Circle: American Indian Dance Theatre Circle" that we watched in class. The film sheds light mostly on the cultural aspects pertaining to religion that Anderson mentions over the dynastic realm. During the film the various dances performed seemed to be deeply rooted within the Native American traditions. Much of these traditions that still define the community today were crafted from religious values that still exist within the members of the community. This produces an interconnectivity between all of the members of the community even though all the members may not be aware of everybody else. This creates an identity revolving among cultural ties, religion, and familial values. These are different variables that help define the nation of the Native Americans.